…and this is a 
A new bill has been proposed in Scarolina. Here it is:
TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 29 OF TITLE 59 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING SUBJECTS OF INSTRUCTION IN THE STATE'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BY ADDING SECTION 59-29-15, TO PROVIDE THAT CURRICULUM USED TO TEACH STUDENTS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF MANKIND MUST MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY BETWEEN RELIGIOUS FAITHS AND BETWEEN RELIGION AND NON-RELIGION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CURRICULUM THAT DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED NEUTRALITY MUST BE REVISED OR REPLACED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Chapter 29 of Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 59-29-15. (A) The General Assembly finds:
(1) that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes wholly applicable to the states the First Amendment's mandate that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of or prohibiting the free expression of religion;
(2) that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all;
(3) a proper respect for the First Amendment compels the State to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion or the inverse;
(4) that atheism is a school of thought that takes a position on religion and the existence and importance of a Supreme Being;
(5) that the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment; and
(6) that teaching atheism or any of its principals, including, but not limited to, the denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, as a philosophical system of beliefs or in a manner that affirmatively opposes or shows hostility to religion, thus exhibiting a preference for those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs, violates the First Amendment.
(B) The State Board of Education shall examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism. Related to non-religion, the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs. The duty to review curriculum imposed by this section is continuing and must reoccur periodically after the initial review in order to assure compliance with this section.
(C) If the board's examination determines that any curriculum fails to maintain the neutrality required by subsection (B), the offending curriculum must be revised or replaced as soon as practicable, but no later than the beginning of the next academic year.
(D) This section does not prevent classes being taught pursuant to Section 59-29-230."
Let's pare that down to its hard kernel of illogic.
The US government is required to be neutral on religion. Hooray!
Atheism is non-religion, therefore it is a religion. What?
The school curriculum must be reviewed, and anything that teaches religion or non-religion must be revised or replaced.
Oh, by the way, we exempt courses that teach about the Christian Bible from this requirement.
This lovely muddle of confused thinking was composed by Senator Michael Fair, who is a conservative (given) Republican (of course) insurance agent (which makes him qualified to pass laws on education and science, I suppose).
We can also distill the bill down a little further.
Schools can't teach anything that doesn't support my sect's religious views, because that would be a violation of the First Amendment.
(via Sensuous Curmudgeon)
Comments
Posted by: Greg | May 27, 2009 11:33 AM
My jaw just dropped and now I'm laughing hysterically.
Posted by: James F | May 27, 2009 11:35 AM
...that teaching atheism or any of its principals...
Wait...atheism hires principals? What school system is that?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 27, 2009 11:37 AM
Of course the stupid idiots behind all this fail to understand that since science is neither religion nor non-religion this proposed bill would not make the slightest difference, in legal terms anyway.
Posted by: sciborg | May 27, 2009 11:39 AM
well, shit.
someone tell Eugenie to put down that trophy and rally the troops. It's "teach the controversy." AGAIN.
Posted by: JD | May 27, 2009 11:40 AM
Wow, I just bounced on a trampoline of stupid and landed in a pool of tard water.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
May 27, 2009 11:43 AM
Hmm, he expects to be taken seriously, but atheism is a religion? The farce is great in this one...
Posted by: Michelle R
|
May 27, 2009 11:45 AM
It really takes an insurance agent to compose such a confuzzled puddle.
Posted by: Libbie | May 27, 2009 11:45 AM
Well, I suppose this is good, because evolution isn't about atheism or religion.
*eyeroll*
Really, if this is what the fundies are reduced to in their sad attempts to push evolution out of the science classroom, then we are winning. This is just pathetic and whiny.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 11:46 AM
I don't harp on editorial miscues on teh intertoobz ('cuz FSM knows I make plenty myself), but I'd think an actual piece of legislation would get a careful copyedit before being filed:
... should quite obviously be...
Regardless of its other failings, this bill's (and presumably, its drafters') inability to distinguish between ideas and people should lead to its summary dismissal.
But seriously folks... I'm not sure I want public schools actively promoting atheism any more than I want them promoting theism, but this is obviously a camel's nose intended to let into the tent legions of nuisance lawsuits claiming that teaching this or that scientific theory or field of study (i.e., not only evilution and the Big Bang, but biology and physics generally... can algebra [with its heathen Muslim name] be far behind?) is tantamount to teaching atheism. These suits will clearly fail once they get to SCOTUS, but by that time the SC public schools might be bankrupt... which, I suspect, would be a not-unwelcome result to the people behind bills like this.
Rev BDC, isn't this your neck of the woods? Please tell us this turd has no chance of passing? Please?
Posted by: trrll | May 27, 2009 11:48 AM
I suppose that the "principal" of Christianity would be God, or maybe Jesus, or perhaps the Pope for Catholics, but I'm not sure who is the principal of atheism.
Posted by: Merkin Muffley
|
May 27, 2009 11:48 AM
I think it is forward thinking to teach the Bible and other holy books as an academic study. It would highlight exactly how absurd they all are.
Posted by: blueelm | May 27, 2009 11:51 AM
Wait... this is weird. So you can't say that Goddidit... and you can't say that Goddin'tdoit... so I guess you say nothing at all? I actually went to a school that put this kind of idea to practice. We watched movies and had extra recess in "science" class. It was awesome until my parents moved and I realized I was horribly ignorant compared to other kids, but now it seems that stigma can be lifted and EVERYONE can be horribly ignorant! That is lovely.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
May 27, 2009 11:55 AM
If there were a pressing need for this legislation, I might think its purposes were decent.
As it is, well, is atheism being taught? Obviously one thinks of "atheistic evolution" being targeted, but the only "problem" is simply that science never finds god.
My question--What does its sponsor think of Expelled? Answering that would go a long way toward telling us what this is all about.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Steve P | May 27, 2009 11:55 AM
A lot of 59-29-230 I don't have a problem with (I laughed at "source of music" though), as I agree that the bible can be taught in a type of objective history of religion course. But then you come to this: "(2) provide that the Old Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the Old Testament era and that the New Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the New Testament era."
WTF? The OT and NT were only important to a small slice of the planet during the eras in which they were written. They want to ignore all the history and literature of the rest of the world, it seems. This looks like just another case of fundies trying to squeek their agenda in with nice language so they can cry foul when they're called on their bullshit.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | May 27, 2009 11:57 AM
So... wait.
If athiesm is Non-belief, and non-belief is a religion, does this mean that any fact that is based on non-belief is a violation of the First Amendment?
So, in first grade, when they tell you that a year is 365 1/4 days long, a Jewish student could claim it violates his first amendment right to think that a Year is 360 days, so therefore you CANNOT teach how many days are in a year, because both are positions of religious belief?
So, this bill kills schools and those things called "facts", because facts are agnostic, and we all know, agnostic is just a PC word for the Religion of Athiesm.
Posted by: Steve P | May 27, 2009 11:57 AM
A lot of 59-29-230 I don't have a problem with (I laughed at "source of music" though), as I agree that the bible can be taught in a type of objective history of religion course. But then you come to this: "(2) provide that the Old Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the Old Testament era and that the New Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the New Testament era."
WTF? The OT and NT were only important to a small slice of the planet during the eras in which they were written. They want to ignore all the history and literature of the rest of the world, it seems. This looks like just another case of fundies trying to squeek their agenda in with nice language so they can cry foul when they're called on their bullshit.
Posted by: littlejohn | May 27, 2009 11:58 AM
I lived in South Carolina a dozen years. I worked for a while in a state college library. Employees had the option of taking Martin Luther King Day off, or Jefferson Davis's birthday. Of course, the white people didn't call it MLK day, they called it N-----Day. Nice.
The state is a swamp in every sense of the word. Of course this legislation has an excellent chance of becoming law. I wish they'd secede again.
Posted by: blueelm | May 27, 2009 12:00 PM
I do think that study of the bible as well as other religious texts, and newer religions as well, is useful. However at no point should the bible ever be used as a primary historical source. I just saw that in there as I refreshed and that is one of the worst ideas ever. No historian would use the bible as the only source when there is so much more available. A lot has happened since then, and historians have gotten a lot better in the last thousand years. My FSM that is weird. Why don't they just close schools completely if they hate them so much?
Posted by: IST
|
May 27, 2009 12:02 PM
This is what it always boils down to... creationists have to feel special... their precious egos can't handle the thought that we're just another mammalian species on a blue speck of a planet in one of an unfathomable number of star systems in the same number of galaxies. Their tiny little brains implode. To be fair, mine about does too, but I'm not arrogant enough to presume that because it makes us that insignificant to the universe it must be false. Blind, pitiless indifference indeed. The inability of some to drop teh sekuritty blanketz wouldn't bother me if they could make it a purely personal thing, but since they insist on invading minds that don't want/need it...
Posted by: The Curmudgeon | May 27, 2009 12:03 PM
Hey, I got a link from PZ himself. Your humble Curmudgeon has hit the big time! Thanks, PZ.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 27, 2009 12:03 PM
Riiiight... So instead of teaching facts, they're now required to teach opinions.
A'ight - in Science class they can teach the opinion of science. They already teach the opinions of the godridden in churches, mosques and synagogues.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 12:04 PM
Big shocker who the sponsor is
I've written about Sen. Mike Fair a number of times.
He's a jackass.
Posted by: MikeyM | May 27, 2009 12:05 PM
Hey, Algebra is as atheistic as descent-with-modification. We expect that Math classes will be given a very close look.
Posted by: dhonig | May 27, 2009 12:05 PM
This is, plain and simple, an anti-evolution statute. Here is the key:
Evolution is not "neutral" toward religion, as it refutes (both) creation tales in the Bible. Therefore, teaching evolution would "show hostility to religion" and "prefer those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs." The statute does not contain the word "evolution," but let there be no doubt, evolution is the target.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 12:16 PM
Bill, Sen Fair and his little cabal of morons do this every year. They introduce a bill meant to attack the ToE and support Christianity. They change the wording and tactics every time similar to what the DI likes to do.
He's an idiot and an embarrassment to the state. At a time where our Governor is worried about saving money and not accepting stimulus funds maybe he should look at Sen Fair's record on wasting tax dollars with these types of stunts.
oh right, there is about zero chance of that happening.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 27, 2009 12:16 PM
I was actually mostly with it until it mentioned the origin of man stuff, which, as other commenters have pointed out, has nothing to do with atheism. I think it is a reasonable request to ask that public schools refrain from telling children that there is no god. Of course, I'm not aware of atheism ever being part of the curriculum at a public school, ever, so... it seems kind of redundant and unnecessary. But yeah, I think it is a reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment to say that public schools should not explicitly decry religion...
What they are missing is that public schools can teach all kinds of stuff that contradicts specific religious doctrines, as long as the religion is not directly attacked. I'm not just thinking evolution; I'm thinking, for example, tolerance. Teaching that there is nothing wrong with being gay does not violate the First Amendment. Now, if public schools tried to say that homosexuality is not a sin, that would be an explicit attack on religion and probably run afoul of the First Amendment...
Posted by: Dan52
|
May 27, 2009 12:20 PM
Now all they have to do is declare that science is a religion, and the only thing left is the Old and New testament courses that are specifically allowed. Voila!
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | May 27, 2009 12:21 PM
Matt Penfold @ 3
Read dhonig @ 24, he has hit this one on the head.
Posted by: mck9 | May 27, 2009 12:28 PM
PZ: "Atheism is non-religion, therefore it is a religion. What?"
Nowhere does the quoted passage assert that atheism is a religion.
What it says is that "the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment."
I am no lawyer, but so far as I know, that's a fair summary of the relevant law, though one might quibble with the wording. The point is that atheistic beliefs are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as religious beliefs. I don't think that notion is controversial among atheists.
In effect this statement repeats point #2: "the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." That's another statement that I wouldn't expect to be controversial among atheists. (It may be controversial among the religious, some of whom would rather not acknowledge the "none at all" option.)
The fundies create enough absurdities on their own. There is no need to attribute invented absurdities to them.
The bigger problem is in defining "hostility to religion." Do the "principals" of atheism include science, or some subset of science (e.g. evolution, Big Bang cosmology)? If so, then this bill would exclude it from the curriculum.
Of course the bill doesn't say what constitutes the principles of atheism, or hostility to religion (at least the quoted passage doesn't). These are code words, disingenuously innocuous upon a literal reading. The faithful know what they mean: "anything I don't like."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 12:28 PM
Evolution taught in SC schools is always Sen. Fair's target.
Posted by: Victor
|
May 27, 2009 12:30 PM
...that teaching atheism or any of its principals...
I don't know about any of you, but I was never "taught" atheism in school. I was taught science and secular reasoning. Theotards seem to think that unless they are expressly teaching religion, they are teaching atheist thought. Stupid, stupid. Me thinks the authors of the bill believe that it will ban the teaching of evolution, somehow (it's hard to get into their heads even with all the empty space).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 12:33 PM
You obviously aren't familiar with Mr. Fair and his tactics.
The inclusion of that is purely to be used to suggest that the Theory of Evolution is atheistic and therefor can not be taught.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 12:34 PM
True enough: The evolutionary story contradicts the creation narrative in the Christian Bible. But teaching evolution can be neutral regarding the existence of "a Supreme Being." That is, while we can infer that "there is no God" from what we know of evolution, we need not make that explicit assertion in order to teach the principles of evolution.
Of course, the fundamentalists behind this bill won't care: The will take the inference for the assertion (if they even understand the difference between inference and assertion), and attack the teaching of evolution under this bill.
Of course it is; my concern is that evolution alone is far from the only target. I think this is really aimed at all science teaching, and ultimately at the institution of public education itself. Taken to its extreme, this law makes it essentially impossible for any school worthy of the name to operate. That is, IMHO, not an unintended consequence of a poorly thought out law; instead, it's the intended consequence of a carefully planned assault.
Would it be too paranoid of me to think the principal/principle error was a deliberate piece of misdirection? Yeah, probably so. Well....
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 27, 2009 12:34 PM
Can we all High Priest of Atheism badges? I could really use a tax exempt status this year.
Posted by: Chris
|
May 27, 2009 12:36 PM
I seriously wonder what will happen when those morons finally figure out that 'algebra' can be traced back to Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī ...
I bet they'll go completely bananas.
Posted by: Brian | May 27, 2009 12:38 PM
I love how these people always fail to see that Athiests are not like the religious because we could be swayed by evidence. Much like science itself. I suppose that technically makes us agnostics, but that is just symantics.
As far as teaching the bible in a historical context, I have no problems with that. I am currently reading the bible and it is fascinating. Furthermore, I think if more people read it, there would be less people falling for this religious nonsense.
I had a "world religions" class in my public high school and it was excelent. Though the school needs to be VERY careful as to who teaches such a class because it can very easily go wrong quick with a bad teacher.
Posted by: whitebird | May 27, 2009 12:39 PM
Phew! Without coffee, I was reading that thinking that it said that this wackness had passed. It's only proposed. Still, it is S.Carolina...aren't they also the ones who held on to the stars and bars kicking and screaming?
Posted by: Calybos | May 27, 2009 12:39 PM
Let's apply a little set-theory logic to this:
1. Schools cannot teach religion OR non-religion.
2. All topics, by definition, are either religion or non-religion.
3. Therefore, schools cannot teach anything.
That should make it easier to plot out the syllabus....
Posted by: zak | May 27, 2009 12:41 PM
So, atheism is "equivalent to a religion", but it "opposes or shows hostility to religion"? I'm confused..
Posted by: AnonymousCoward | May 27, 2009 12:43 PM
All this silly handwringing about this bible history class.
Since no one cared to read, I think I should point out that the class isn't subject to section 59-29-179 in the least.
Posted by: Brian | May 27, 2009 12:44 PM
I want Atheism taught in schools.
There is no god. Belief in god is incorrect. If a student thought that Abe Lincoln was the first president, he would be corrected by his teacher. Why is an incorrect belief in god any different?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 12:45 PM
Can we please make one thread about some assholes in one location not automatically turn into a display of ignorance on the entire population of an area?
Posted by: Paul from NH | May 27, 2009 12:46 PM
@#10:
The "principal" of atheism is PZ. Duh.
Posted by: T_U_T | May 27, 2009 12:50 PM
Since non-religion and religion are complement categories, banning both will leave literally nothing ,they may as well as ban teaching anything.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 27, 2009 12:53 PM
Sure, as long as it isn't my state, Florida. ;-)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 1:04 PM
Brian:
And I agree... but I'm not sure I can demonstrate the truth of that proposition to the same objective standards we can demonstrate that Abraham Lincoln was not the first president.
More importantly, the Constitution specifically protects people's belief in God (however incorrect you and I hold it to be) from state-sponsored interference.
Finally, in a purely pragmatic sense, I hold the public education enterprise far too important to want to see it founder on the shoals of this particular fight. Belief in some god or another is deeply rooted in human culture; we won't sweep it away simply by tweaking the curriculum. At this point in our history, if the public schools go to war with religion, they will lose... and that outcome would set back, rather than advance, the cause of atheism.
Posted by: bic | May 27, 2009 1:04 PM
"Scarolina" Never heard that. GREAT!
Posted by: Rieux | May 27, 2009 1:08 PM
I'm with mck9 @ #29. For the purposes of First Amendment law, there's a very real sense in which atheism is--and sure as hell should be--treated by courts as if it were religion: our non-beliefs are every bit as deserving of Establishment Clause protection as anyone's religious beliefs are. So, though one can certainly quibble with the wording (and yes, of course, the entire legislation is a code-worded set-up for attacking evolution and probably much more), I don't think it makes much sense for us to go after the "Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment" line. It's substantially correct.
In light of the legislation's fixation on human origins stuff, it's basically impossible to ignore the code-wordiness of this whole effort. But if it were somehow possible, this legislation boils down to "The state shall review all of its educational curricula to make sure that they don't violate the Establishment Clause." Which is a terrific idea! Obviously teaching the actual science of evolution is utterly uncontroversial in First Amendment law, so no worries there. But something tells me that one or two school districts in South Carolina might just be teaching things in science classes that wouldn't pass Establishment Clause muster--so under this legislation, they're gone! Good show.
The legislation's freako fundy authors clearly recognize that the First Amendment is actually more dangerous to curricula they like than curricula they don't, which is why the stupid paragraph (D) ("Oh, you don't get to examine Bible classes") is in there. They recognize that they're playing with secularist fire.
So: this bill is bad because the people who wrote it, and likely the people who will vote for and/or administer it, don't actually care about the Establishment Clause; they just want a club with which to bludgeon secular (which is NOT the same as anti-religious) education, in service of their preferred theocracy. But in the hands of more honest and principal'd (heh) administrators, I think the effects of this legislation could actually be rather positive.
- Rieux (IAAL)
Posted by: Adam W. | May 27, 2009 1:17 PM
"(5) that the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment"
I think this is what everyone is referring to when they say "atheism is a religion". Unless I missed another section in there. But this isn't saying Atheism is a religion, it is just saying for the purposes of the first amendment Atheism is treated the same (has the same rights).
But I get what they are trying to do. Now we just have to wait for the onslaught of claims the evolution is teaching a "theory" that supports atheism and therefore it should be removed from schools. And they will throw in that quote from Dawkins were he said learning about science/biology/evolution etc lead to his atheism.
It's all based on the same premise that "teach the controversy" is based on. As long as someone says something contrary to an established fact, there is a controversy.... sigh.
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 27, 2009 1:17 PM
This is what comes out of repeated public assertions that "science and religion can't conflict" and "you can't say anything bad about anyone's religion." Most religions are not content to keep God and its doings safely away behind the scene, as it "works through" whatever it is our science reveals in nature. On the contrary: they give God an explicit and necessary role -- and now you've got a conflict.
It's true that a teacher can't say that "evolution means there's no God." But that kind of neutrality's not enough for the fundies. They want evolution itself to be classified as a matter of faith, on par with the Trinity or transubstantiation. Otherwise, science and religion are conflicting, and someone on the public payroll is saying something bad about someone else's religion.
Too bad. Once your religion thrusts itself into an area which science can examine, you're screwed. That's the end of your magic, sacred space into which government cannot intrude. These Christians need to learn how to wave their hands vaguely, throw around the metaphors and symbols, and insist that evolution makes God even better than God was before, because now He's above science. Evolution strengthens faith!
Otherwise, they've picked a battle on secular turf, and they will lose to atheism.
Posted by: llewelly | May 27, 2009 1:22 PM
Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 11:46 AM:
First off - no-one suggested schools should be ' actively promoting atheism'. That's a strawman. You're a superb example of why this bill is bad: it puts gross mischaracterizations into the text of law, and otherwise intelligent people, like you, take them seriously.
Furthermore - follow the link, and see that it's more than a camel's nose, since it creates a special exception for the Old and New Testaments.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t59c029.htm#59-29-230:
(A)(1) A school district board of trustees may authorize, to be taught in the district's high schools, an elective course concerning the history and literature of the Old Testament era and an elective course concerning the history and literature of the New Testament era.
(2) Each course offered must be taught in an objective manner with no attempt to influence the students as to either the truth or falsity of the materials presented.
(3) Students must be awarded the same number of Carnegie units that are awarded to other classes of similar duration.
(4) A particular version of the Old or New Testament to be used in either course may be recommended by the board of trustees; provided, that the teacher of the course and students enrolled in the course may use any version of the Old and New Testaments.
(B) The board of trustees of a district that offers a course pursuant to this section must:
(1) maintain supervision and control of the course;
(2) hire any new teachers that it determines are required to teach the course in the same manner all other teachers are hired;
(3) assure that all teachers teaching the course are certified by the State; and
(4) make no inquiry into the religious beliefs, or the lack of religious beliefs, held by a teacher when determining which teacher shall teach the class.
(C) The State Board of Education shall develop and adopt academic standards and appropriate instructional materials that must be used by high schools offering a course pursuant to this section. These academic standards and instructional materials must ensure that the courses do not disparage or encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs.
(D) The academic standards and appropriate instructional materials developed and adopted by the board must:
(1) be designed to help students gain a greater appreciation of the Old Testament and the New Testament as great works of literature, art, and music; assist students in gaining greater insight into the many historical events recorded in the Old Testament and the New Testament; and provide students with a greater awareness of the many social customs that the Old Testament and the New Testament have significantly influenced; and
(2) provide that the Old Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the Old Testament era and that the New Testament is the primary text for the course exploring the history and literature of the New Testament era.
(E) The academic standards developed and adopted may provide that students may be assigned period-appropriate secular historical and literary works to supplement the primary text.
They've done their best to minimize the risk of 1st amendment violations ... except that no other religious materials are specifically allowed be taught by law.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 1:23 PM
It is uncontroversial as seen by someone who is knowledgeable enough to know better, but I promise you Mike Fair is not one of these people. I of course could be wrong but I'm willing to put a nice wager on the fact that Sen Fair put this forth as the opening move in what will be the "Atheism = Evolution strategy" therefore we can not teach Evolution because it is teaching a "religion".
Sen. Fair's previous attempts included
1. Teach the Controversy (manufactroversy)
2. Academic Freedom (Freedom to teach shit science as good science)
3. Encourage students to think critically (aka dismiss anything their parents or pastors tell them too)
4. Show the strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution and it's competing theories (never mind that Creationism and ID are not competing on equal level)
This is just the newest volley in the evolution of Sen. Fair's attempt to ruin (more than it already is) South Carolina education.
No doubt about that, but good luck seeing this bill used to rout the ones slipping junky creationism in science class.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 27, 2009 1:30 PM
I'm sure you can demonstrate it exactly to the extent that you can demonstrate that leprechauns don't exist. On a related note, my teachers in public schools told me that leprechauns aren't real. This is clearly hostile to the druidic religions of my ancestors, especially since it can't be demonstrated by any objective standards.
Bottom line: science offers the only approach to epistemology that makes any sense to me. The truth is always provisional, waiting to be invalidated by new data. And hypotheses with no evidence for them are bad hypotheses and should be rejected outright.
That said, if the great state of South Carolina wants to reject rational epistemology, I'm all for it. This graph (the one graphing states by average income vs. human development index) makes it pretty clear where SC's economy is right now, and if they think this is going to help, I say let them try it.
And when universities and colleges start rejecting South Carolinians on the basis of their substandard secondary education system, maybe they'll be forced to rethink the benefits of a rational epistemological system.
By the way, the graph is pretty suggestive of a correlation between religiosity and economic. Direct or inverse correlation? Check and see! (Interesting collection of states below the trendline -- states whose human development index rankings are lower than their average income rankings. In other words, states with the money to improve the lives of their citizens, but don't bother to do so.)
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2009 1:31 PM
I guess they also won't be teaching Venn Diagrams.
Posted by: stewy.cvl | May 27, 2009 1:32 PM
jesus... maybe we should just ban public schools altogether, considering they wouldn't be able to teach a damn thing under this bill. "If your lesson plan teaches about god, change it. If it doesn't teach about god, change it. Repeat, ad infinitum."
Posted by: Hoonser | May 27, 2009 1:41 PM
Yes yes. Athiesm is a religion. It makes sense.
It's like, if you don't own a dog, you're still a dog owner. Makes absolute perfect sense.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 1:43 PM
Fixed
And screw the kids who get fucked over in the process?
This type of bullshit in my state will end up affecting your state. Supporting those of us that fight is a much better tactic than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and taking the position of "Fuck 'em, it's just South Carolina".
Posted by: Heidi Anderson | May 27, 2009 1:43 PM
Seeing this after spending a week in NYC, and then coming home not only to SC, but the fucking Upstate (this asshat's area) makes me sick. Absolutely sick.
Posted by: dkew | May 27, 2009 1:45 PM
I am not aware that the Supreme Court has in fact opined that atheism is a religion when considering the First Amendment. Last I heard, that was just another gross exaggeration by the nutters. Actual lawyers, please comment.
Posted by: Colin | May 27, 2009 1:51 PM
I think the problem is they're valuing fairness over critical investigation. If one route of exploration shows that a certain view is unsupportable, then sweet. But this legislation wants to avoid even treading on ground where any view can be implicitly disputed.
Posted by: Michael | May 27, 2009 1:53 PM
Uhhhhh... does this mean you can't teach anything? Because pretty much anything that is non-religious is... well.... non religious.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 1:54 PM
If anyone wants to see the Atheism = evolution = religion tactic, check out Peloza v. Capistrano School District.
I'm sure Sen. Fair would put forth an argument it's very similar to Peloza's argument. One he lost.
It's also no surprise that Sen Fair is either ignorant of Peloza v. Capistrano USD or he is ignoring it in another grand show of him throwing himself at the feet of the evil secularists to be crucified as a martyr. Giving him more fuel for his persecution pyre.
Never mind what it will be costing the taxpayers.
Posted by: ABradford | May 27, 2009 2:02 PM
This legislation is childish in the exact same sense that being unable to distinguish or favor fact over fiction is childish.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 2:03 PM
IANAL (obvious isn't it?) but my understanding is not that the Supreme Court declared Atheism a religion but that Atheism is offered the same protections under the first amendment as religions.
Posted by: Nick | May 27, 2009 2:05 PM
The bill's interesting language opens up three basic senarios.
1) A science or logic-based curriculum cannot preclude the existence of God.
2) A science or logic-based curriculum cannot mention the existence of God.
3) Any theory which does not specifically indicate a particular diety or lack there-of has to be included. Additionally, it cannot be argued against on the basis or religious belief. Therefore, Intelligent Design could be taught in school so long as no one indicates a specific deity as the designer. Additionally, no one would be allowed to object to the ID on the basis that it is Christian creationism in disguise.
Furthermore, it could be argued under this proposed law that evolutionary theory as it applies to biology "takes a position on religion" equivalent to atheism (lack of evidence in God's involvement in development of life, and therefore would need to be thrown out.
This is a subtlety dangerous proposed law.
Posted by: Nick | May 27, 2009 2:09 PM
The bill's interesting language opens up three basic senarios.
1) A science or logic-based curriculum cannot preclude the existence of God.
2) A science or logic-based curriculum cannot mention the existence of God.
3) Any theory which does not specifically indicate a particular deity or lack there-of has to be included. Additionally, it cannot be argued against on the basis or religious belief. Therefore, Intelligent Design could be taught in school so long as no one indicates a specific deity as the designer. Additionally, no one would be allowed to object to the ID on the basis that it is Christian creationism in disguise.
Furthermore, it could be argued under this proposed law that evolutionary theory as it applies to biology "takes a position on religion" equivalent to atheism (lack of evidence in God's involvement in development of life, and therefore would need to be thrown out.
This is a subtlety dangerous proposed law.
Posted by: H.H. | May 27, 2009 2:21 PM
Well, he's right that "that the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment." And it's important for us atheists to realize that this is a very good thing, since it puts the lie to the oft-repeated canard that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from religion. It does, since in the eyes of the law, atheism is the philosophical equivalent of a religious position, and is thus Constitutionally protected just like any other religion.
What this bill gets wrong, of course, is that secularism is not atheism. Teaching atheism (that there is no god) in public schools is illegal. But there's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about simply failing to mention god. It's a non-subject. Evolution is secular science and in no way promotes atheism.
As others have pointed out, this bill will have zero practical effect on the way South Carolina classrooms are run. Evolution is still legal and creationism isn't. I'm guessing that Senator Michael Fair is either too stupid to realize this or is counting on his constituents to be.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
May 27, 2009 2:22 PM
To paraphrase thunderf00t:
Calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps, a hobby.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 2:25 PM
Bingo... well that and when it fails, it's another feather in his Persecuted-Warrior-for-God cap.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 27, 2009 2:25 PM
I half expected the bill to end with something like "Whereas Christianity is a relationship with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and not a religion, every school shall be required to teach it."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 2:26 PM
llewelly:
The proposed bill presumes that schools may be "actively promoting atheism" by singling said teaching out for explicit mention in the language:
Of course it is... but it's the legislation's strawman, not mine. Have you somehow gotten the impression that I support a bill I referred to as a "turd"?
"Otherwise intelligent" people like me take the bill's invidious agenda seriously, and you would do well to do so with us. The language about not teaching atheism is, as several others have noted, probably correct in First Amendment terms... but my whole point was that, as you suggest, that's a strawman argument in service of advancing a false association between teaching atheism and teaching science.
You also missed my point about the camel's nose, which had nothing to do with the pernicious protection offered to Bible classes, but rather with the notion that this attack on evolution science is a "fleet leader" for attacks on other scientific theories and disciplines.
Next time, try yelling at your actual opponents, instead of the people on your side. We have enough "friendly fire" around here as it is.
Posted by: John Atkeson | May 27, 2009 2:29 PM
My religion teaches that the USA lost World War 2, and that slavery is still legal.
Therefore it will be against S. Carolina law to teach US history.
Oh yes, and written language was never invented, so they can't teach reading & writing or the state will be persecuting my religion.
Posted by: frog | May 27, 2009 2:34 PM
I'm not sure that Fair quite understands what he's promoting here. If we follow such a law, it would be far more damaging to his cultists than to "atheists".
Just think about this: "the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs."
That's "religion" not a religion -- it has to be to be legal. So, they're saying that they can't teach materials that affirmatively attack religion in general (any and all religions, including of course, atheism by their own definition).
Now, since the 1st amendment requires religion neutrality, this whole rigamorole is only legal if it also protects atheism against Christianity -- the review process can only be legal if it does so. That either bans pretty much anything of any kind, nothing of consequence, or requires the elimination of such material as Bible study courses while doing nothing to real science, which of course doesn't have anything to say about religion in general, as religion in general has no common qualities, as per their own statements regarding atheism as a religion.
Yeah, it's crazy.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 2:39 PM
Don't put it past them, they just might when they push another similar bill with a new tactic next legislative session.
One thing to remember, with Fair, his buddy Walker and their group of fundamentalists there is always another bill in the works attacking evoltuion and secularism and shoving Christ down everyone else's throats.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 27, 2009 2:45 PM
Yeah, kind of. Sorry, Rev, but I can't save other people's children. Warren Jeffs can marry his 12 year old daughters off to his 50 year old congregants and I can't do a thing about it. Educators can win all the courtroom battles and the kids still go home to hear their parents tell them "you ain't come from no monkey!"
And frankly, this is a democracy. If South Carolinians don't want this joker determining the content of their children's schooling, then it's their responsibility to vote him out of office. If a majority of South Carolinians want a "Christian values" type education, then that's what they should get. However, I agree that this is terrible for anyone who wants their children to get good educations (maybe vouchers aren't such a bad idea after all?).
I get a little frustrated though. The benefits of teaching one's children to think for themselves and to answer their own questions seems obvious to me, and dictating to your children that the source of all answers is a particular magic book strikes me as borderline child abuse. I don't see why I should have to explain to anyone why it's OK to be an atheist and why it's OK to at least pose the question, "What if God really doesn't exist?" Nor do I feel like it should be controversial to teach things that are completely factually true. So when people go out of their way to make sure that their children are taught lies, I'm always a little tempted to say "Yeah! Go ahead, let's see how that works out for you and yours."
So much energy is expended in explaining to fundies why their beliefs are systematically wrong. Maybe I've just gotten too jaded about the whole thing, but my take now is moving towards: "Well, they don't listen to us, so let's just let them demonstrate how intellectually and morally bankrupt their belief system is." Let them score own goals until the culture wars are over.
Your position is definitely more courageous and moral than is mine.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 2:45 PM
Dan L.:
Sure they did. And nobody fought them over the fact that they can't prove the nonexistence of leprechauns because nobody cares. "God exists" and "leprechauns exist" are, I fully agree, equally indefensible positions, but the fact that the former is a religious statement and the latter is not (at least not in this culture, at this moment in history, with all due respect to your druidic ancestors) matters. Ultimately, the fact that religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution is also what protects us from the religious beliefs of others. We fuck with that at our own peril, since in our current polity, we need the protection more than the religious folks do (their disingenuous protestations of persecution notwithstanding).
Thankfully, what "makes sense" to any given individual isn't what makes the rules... because there are a whole lot more people to whom some sort of god-belief "makes sense" than there are of us.
Posted by: 386sx | May 27, 2009 2:46 PM
Who couldn't possibly see through all that? Everybody knows it's a "wedge" trick.
Oh, and your princip-a-l is your p-a-l. That's like one of the first things they teach you in school, Senator "Fair and unbalanced". Senator "Fair with the plastic preacher hair".
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
May 27, 2009 2:47 PM
But doesn't Evolution, and all the sciences, look toward natural explanations? That in itself excludes any unfalsifiable notions of deities controlling things. Science promotes a naturalistic world view, whereas religions (typically) promote a mysterious, unknowable, supernatural world view. Whenever religion makes a truth claim about reality that involves the supernatural, it is in direct competition with what science would claim. Religion, has never won any of those competitions. Science on the other hand, has time and time again shown that religious explanations are false and unnecessary. This to me, IMO seems to promote a non-theistic world view.
This statement does not take religion away from people or turn atheism into a religion, it keeps religion out of the purview of the government. Teaching about a theistic or non-theistic world view is perfectly legal. The "free exercise" part implies that promoting one religion over the other is not legal. So a class can be created to teach all about xtianity, it just can't teach it as being the "one true religion" without a basis in testable fact.
As far as ID goes, that's just boils down to trying to change the definition of scientific inquiry to allow for unfalsifiable claims. The ID lunatics don't even realize how incoherent that proposition is.
Posted by: Tim | May 27, 2009 2:48 PM
The thing that would potentially be cause for appeal if drafted is that crazy compulsive thing these people do, the capitalization of any noun in reference to their sky daddy. In this case the reference to "a Supreme Being" is no longer a noun, but a proper noun referencing a particular supreme being.
Posted by: scrabcake | May 27, 2009 2:52 PM
My first thought on this one was, "fair enough. If you can't teach christianity, you can't teach atheism." second thought was:"wait there's no criteria for determining what supports atheism in science class" and then " well, what •could• you teach in science class that couldn't possibly be interpreted as as supporting the idea that there's not an obvious need for a god in nature?"
As far as the exemption for bible classes? WTF? Historical events from the bible? Do they mean the fact that the roman empire existed? Because other then the fact that a lot of the places and minor characters in the bible, ie Herod, were historical figures, there's not much proof for any of the bible's events or stories. And as for teaching lit from the time of the old testament, what? Are they going to teach the "tale of the eloquent peasant" ? Like hell they are!
Posted by: texaskeptic | May 27, 2009 3:05 PM
@386sx-
You're correct- it's the sharp pointy bit of the wedge strategy. After "Teach Creation", "Teach ID", "Teach the Controversy" all failed the fundies have fallen back to "Just Don't Teach at All"!
I sure hope Don McElroy doesn't pick up on the new scheme here in Texas.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 27, 2009 3:12 PM
Then substitute "tree spirit" for Shinto or "Bodhisattva" for Buddhism. Or angel for Judaism and Christianity.
The epistemic view I'm espousing is very simply the epistemology of science. It can be taught without reference to God, but an obvious (to me) conclusion of applying scientific methodology to the God hypothesis is the conclusion that it is false. I do believe that science and religion are incompatible. I'm sorry if that is politically inconvenient for you.
Posted by: Joe Cracker | May 27, 2009 3:33 PM
Great, so they are not opposed to teaching Agnosticism. Especially the extreme type: I can't know ... and you can't know.
I would really love to see agnosticism pervading every aspect of education.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 3:42 PM
But you can. Warren Jeffs did so illegally and this bill, though somewhat clumsily worded to avoid it, will probably bring the ire of the ACLU and the federal government down on SC should it pass, and that's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run. But the point is, the more states that allow for this type of bullshit, the more likely that you in your state will have to deal with it.
Except that the constitution of the US forbids that. Have you seen how the various tactics by the DI and creationists spread across the country? Just because it isn't in your state right now doesn't mean it won't be. Combating this type of foolishness doesn't have to be a priority for anyone but being ignorant as to the actual state of affairs in places like South Carolina is not an excuse to hand wave off the population that fights against these idiots and throw them all in the same easily dismissed group. Baby out with the bathwater.
That's an opinion. I'm not willing to be that dismissive of whole groups of people who are unfortunately a minority in their current location to be forced, arguably illegally, to a sub-par education because of the currently elected's religious motivations. Sub-par educations on their own are bad enough and we have our fair share here in SC. But when you throw in the willful ignorance and not so hidden religious agenda of those like Sen. Fair in the mix, that is at least something that can be addressed leagally.
I agree but unfortunately the collateral damage is widespread and while not 100% avoidable it is addressable constitutionally. Yes there are things that you have to accept as a minority voting block, however these types of bills based on religious agendas should not be one of them as they are violations of the first amendment. Granted this new bill tries its very best to avoid that issue, I have a feeling it will not.
My whole point is, yes people who elect these idiots get what they pay for and often they are overjoyed by it. That does not mean that the entire state should be doomed because of the idiocy of the voters that put Fair and his ilk in the government. Should every American be damned because of GW Bush's 8 years? I know I busted my ass in two different presidential elections to try and avoid that.
You are of course completely entitled to your frustration and willingness to say "fuck it, you wanted it SC and you got it" but that in my opinion is a lazy way to argue the issue but that doesn't mean it isn't at least somewhat justified.
ok rant off... for now.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 3:47 PM
Oh and a Charleston blog friend of mine just left me this comment that so awesomely explains the cycle of Mike Fair creationist bills.
Posted by: H.H. | May 27, 2009 4:03 PM
This really has nothing to do with what's "politically convenient," but with what's legal. I believe science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and I think those people who think science and religion can be reconciled are deluded. But the Constitution expressly forbids teaching this in public classrooms. And you know what? That's exactly how it should be. We want to keep government secular. It's in everyone's interest--atheists and theists alike--to keep the public square a neutral venue. Now, in the free marketplace of ideas, you or I or anyone has the right to advocate for whatever religion or philosophical position they feel has the most merit. I enjoy telling everyone that chooses to listen to me that science and faith are mutually-exclusive epistemologies. But what I don't want is for the government itself to take a position, because chances are it isn't going to be the one I agree with.The science taught in public schools needs to remain entirely secular precisely so that we can freely express our opinion outside of classrooms that science is incompatible with faith. Anyone who fails to realize this is not only extremely shortsighted, but also fails to understand on a very fundamental level why the Constitution affords atheists the protections they enjoy. The foundation of fair debate is necessarily a neutral stage on which to hold that debate.
Posted by: whitebird | May 27, 2009 4:09 PM
BDC @ 42:"Can we please make one thread about some assholes in one location not automatically turn into a display of ignorance on the entire population of an area?"
Hey, MY allegedly liberal state just shot down gay marriage again. So I would have no problem with someone saying "aren't those the "liberals" who are behind Iowa in human rights?"
Cuz, you know, even though I personally voted for gay equality, the majority of my state didn't. And I am quite ashamed and shocked.
Posted by: DaveL | May 27, 2009 4:12 PM
Has anyone else noticed that he leaves out any mention of screening against favouring "religion over non-religion"? He covers "one religion over other religions", and "non-religion over religion", but pointedly leaves out the inverse of the latter. In addition, he singles out non-religion for special consideration but refuses to even mention the inverse.
Posted by: whitebird | May 27, 2009 4:18 PM
Actually, BDC, isn't S. Carolina quite pretty and a fairly inexpensive (I remember , while driving through Tennessee seeing signs advertising "Carolina prices") place to live?
I might consider joining the thinking minority there someday.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 27, 2009 4:20 PM
Actually, my frustration with the Obama administration is probably a big part of my growing disgustapathy (this should be a word).
I could be wrong, here, but I thought the constitution of the US forbids Congress from making laws about it. It doesn't explicitly prevent states from making laws about religion, and I was under the impression that at the time the constitution went into effect, several states did actually have official religions.
From Wikipedia (State religion article):
Likewise, Connecticut (according to the same article) was officially Congregationalist until well into the 19th century. I included the Georgia part for full disclosure -- for the most part, the colonies did give up official religions either during the revolution or by the time the constitution was adopted. But this wasn't universal.
I agree with your argument in principle, but I think you're engaging in some degree of interpretation (an interpretation that could probably be argued against more forcefully by someone who actually disagrees with it).
That said, I've already told you your approach is more moral and courageous than mine, and I wasn't kidding. Hopefully I'll be able to work through my current bout of disillusionment and once again join the forces of truth and justice.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 4:21 PM
Dan L.:
Sure. And the Constitution protects people from having agents of the state tell them, in a situation where their attendance and attention are compulsory, that their beliefs in tree spirits or angels are false. That said beliefs are false is immaterial: It's not the business of the state to be forcing individuals to confront that fact. You really think otherwise? Because the majority of the people from whom the authority of the state derives do believe in some sort of god or spirit, and the same prinicple protects you (and me) from being forcibly indoctrinated on behalf of those god beliefs.
...and doing so is a perfectly appropriate activity of state-sponsored schools, but...
...driving people unwillingly to this conclusion is not the business of any agency of government.
I assure you I take the First Amendment more seriously than as a matter of "political convenience." Not only do I support it in principle, but as a (separate) pragmatic matter, its protections are far more vitally needed by atheists and freethinkers than they are by the theist majority.
Posted by: whitebird | May 27, 2009 4:24 PM
OK - last comment. I just looked up S.C. on the wiki and the state flag looks a little bit...uh...
a crescent AND a palm tree?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 27, 2009 4:28 PM
It's a palmetto tree.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
May 27, 2009 4:31 PM
But I always wondered how misguided it would be to require that any proposed law be justifiable using non-religious ideals and scientific rationale? Not very misguided at all IMO. That to me is the spirit of the first amendment. If that spirit were applied to legislation today, laws banning abortion, same sex marriage, or any other proposed law would have to meet the test of being justified in a non-religious and scientific context. That, IMO, would be a great thing. But it would also mean the government would take a position favoring not only secular philosophy, but the scientific method. There are people of influence denying global warming largely because of their religious views, not scientific evidence. People oppose abortion because they claim it's murder. It's dangerous IMO to consider laws that are not supported scientifically for a secular agenda.
Posted by: James F | May 27, 2009 4:34 PM
Checking with the NCSE, Sen. Fair has not done well at all in trying to push this sort of legislation through. Here's hoping he retains his perfect failure rate.
Posted by: nichole | May 27, 2009 4:35 PM
I'm with scrabcake @80. Yep, sure, can't teach atheism. I wouldn't call it a religion, but I would call it "irreligion" which they definitely prohibit in that clause thingie to the second amendment to the constitution. Everything was kosher... until the exemption for the Christian bible.
Fuck. That.
Posted by: Walton | May 27, 2009 4:35 PM
That's true, but the 14th Amendment (equal protection of the laws) is generally considered to have extended the scope of 1st Amendment protection to the activities of state governments.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 27, 2009 4:39 PM
The only good thing about South Carolina is that my cousin Dionaea lives there.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 27, 2009 4:39 PM
I find this bit to be revealing. If they were sincere about being neutral towards religion, it would be "supreme beings".Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 4:44 PM
How the hell does one even "teach" atheism?
It's like teaching how not to collect stamps, to use the colloquial analogy.
One can only teach religion, first. Then one can attempt to undo the damage.
that's about it, really.
There are people who teach about the fallacies of religion, but that's not "teaching" atheism.
atheism is a conclusion reached AFTERWARDS.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 4:48 PM
No, that's ridiculous. There's much more than that though the Venus flytrap is very cool
Yep
I head out to Sullivan's Island for sunset and sunrise photos all the time. Fort Moultrie is a beautiful place.
Define inexpensive? In the upstate probably, but not so much here in Charleston.
Posted by: Darren | May 27, 2009 4:49 PM
(4) that atheism is a school of thought that takes a position on religion and the existence and importance of a Supreme Being
Huh? So from now on, the fact that I occasionally read the star signs for a chuckle makes me an astrologist?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
May 27, 2009 4:51 PM
Not to be confused with palmetto bugs.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
May 27, 2009 4:51 PM
I find this to be a word game. Atheism in essence takes the same position regarding deities as it does any truth claim about reality: it takes the default position of skepticism. Being skeptical is the default position, and is what drives scientific discovery. And regarding the existence of deities, there is much to be skeptical about, and much evidence in conflict with the concept.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 4:52 PM
Yep, he does this same shit every year.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 27, 2009 5:02 PM
In my opinion, this is exactly what rigorously teaching science does. The teacher doesn't have to actually tell the children that God doesn't exist. Teaching the children scientific methodology and the philosophy behind it demonstrates that the notion of God is not useful in discovering truths about the world around us, and so teaching it inherently privileges atheism.
I guess one might be able to get around this by having all science teachers tell their classes that "true" in science is not necessarily the same as "true" in real life, but I believe that they are the same true, and I would object to a science teacher telling that to my children.
So you take the first amendment seriously...does that mean it's not politically convenient? And if the first amendment prevented the government from doing something you really want it to be able to do, wouldn't that make it politically inconvenient (with respect to context, of course).
I don't know what you're trying to get me to argue against. All I'm saying is that a scientific education privileges an atheistic viewpoint over a religious viewpoint. I don't think this should make it a first amendment issue, but Fair apparently disagrees, and the first amendment guarantees him the liberty to do so.
Posted by: dbwindhorst | May 27, 2009 5:04 PM
To add one thing to the Rev's fine assessments:
That this gutless cretin Fair waits until near the end of the legislative calendar to grace us with his annual village-idiocy ensures that the bill dies in committee while still scoring him points with the flock.
And, yes, the Upstate is both affordable and stoked with natural beauty (mountain real estate is nearly as pretty as North Carolina's, but not so retirement-trendy, and therefore a whooooole lot cheaper) -- if you can tolerate the brain-eating fundoids.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 27, 2009 5:08 PM
Rev. BDC @101,
I know, just kiddin'. I love swamps myself.
As an ignorant European I wonder why creationists always make such a fuss about what is being taught at public schools in the US. Don't they send their kids to some Religious Moron School anyway? Or to no school at all?
Posted by: dbwindhorst | May 27, 2009 5:10 PM
To add one thing to the Rev's fine assessments:
That this gutless cretin Fair waits until near the end of the legislative calendar to grace us with his annual village-idiocy ensures that the bill dies in committee while still scoring him points with the flock.
And, yes, the Upstate is both affordable and stoked with natural beauty (mountain real estate is nearly as pretty as North Carolina's, but not so retirement-trendy, and therefore a whooooole lot cheaper) -- if you can tolerate the brain-eating fundoids.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 27, 2009 5:13 PM
Bill #91 - with due respect you lose me.
Let's take "...driving people unwillingly to this conclusion is not the business of any agency of government." WTF?!?
We do all the time in education - drive people to confront things that challenge their beliefs. A teacher cannot help it if some misconception is religious based -- e.g., earth is 6000 only years old, or the Holocaust never happened because my preacher told me so. Does one let that crap slide?
One does not have to say religion is for fools or anything personal. But one must in no uncertain terms teach proper and complete information and methods. And be sure to grade for correct answers - correct meaning the ones the real world attests to for the subject.
So if one is asked to explain transubstantiation one does not have to say RRCs are delusional to believe the wafer and wine are body and blood, to say "as far as science is concerned they are bread and wine and here is why" as an object lesson. I bet PZ would actually use that opportunity to convey scientific thinking splendidly (competently and respectfully - assuming children being taught).
Or are you suggesting anything I believe if religion based is a correct answer in school? Use "god did it" - the universal solvent that washes away fear of exams.
Posted by: 2bookworm | May 27, 2009 5:26 PM
Things like this make me disappointed to be a South Carolinian. Otherwise, I love it.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | May 27, 2009 5:38 PM
Which is easy to do since they both are about the same size.Posted by: RM | May 27, 2009 5:58 PM
South Carolina is an incredibly diverse state. From the mountains to one of the most beautiful coasts in the country. It is hardly a "swamp in every sense of the word" as so ignorantly stated earlier in this blog entry.
We do have the average Southern share of fundie idiots here along with many rational thinkers.
Sen. Fair is a prime example of the fundies visible in pretty much every state in this union, and pretty much every country on earth. Luckily, for us, his bills never seem to go anywhere.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 27, 2009 6:02 PM
Dan L.:
As long as the teacher doesn't "actually tell the children that God doesn't exist," then you have no conflict with the First Amendment... and I have no conflict with you. I took you to be advocating explicit instruction that "God does not exist" in the public-school classroom. That's all I was arguing against; if that's not what you meant, why have you been arguing back?
Did you not mean that comment about "politically inconvenient" as dismissive snark? It certainly seemed that way... but if not, again, we have no conflict.
Of course it does: Just as "the facts have a liberal bias" they also have a nontheist bias... so let's teach science and let the rational students come to their own conclusions. But if you advocate for the explicit teaching of atheism, or if you loudly insist that teaching science is teaching atheism, you're playing right into the hands of the tools of unreason and theism (e.g., Sen. Fair, for instance).
ConcernedJoe:
Of course not: You teach them that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and that the Holocaust happened, and if they argue with you, you tell 'em that what their preacher says is between them and their preacher, but this is what science says about the age of the Earth and this is what history says about the Holocaust.
What have I said in this thread that led you to believe I was suggesting anyone should roll over for YECs or Holocaust deniers, or that I in any way support this horrible bill? This line of conversation started because I responded to the suggestion — by Brian, waaaaay upthread — that atheism (or as he put it, Atheism) affirmatively should be taught in public schools. The subsequent comments by the two of you (and by llewelly) made it seem you were supporting Brian's position; if you're not, we don't have anything to argue about.
One last time: What I believe is that nothing explicit about religious belief should be taught in public schools. The same legal principle that protects theists against state indoctrination on religious issues also protects us nontheists from having the sort of religious nonsense cited about crammed down our children's throats... and we need the protection more than they do (because there are so many more of them, that is, not because I think they're even vaguely close to right).
Posted by: Grizzly | May 27, 2009 6:30 PM
Like a funny athiest once said - athiesm is a religion like not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Exactly how are they going to enforce this? Will they be unable to teach 2H + O -> H2O because there's no sky daddy magic in the equation?
Posted by: Grizzly | May 27, 2009 6:33 PM
Like a funny athiest once said - athiesm is a religion like not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Exactly how are they going to enforce this? Will they be unable to teach 2H + O -> H2O because there's no sky daddy magic in the equation?
Posted by: RPJ | May 27, 2009 6:49 PM
Looks like Bill Dauphin summed it up for me. This has probably been argued to death already (sorry I haven't taken the time to read all the comments) so I won't take too long~
"(5) that the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment"
I'm not certain if the SC has actually ruled that, but I would agree; atheism certainly is not a religion, but it isn't secular either. Teaching "science says the Universe is ~14.3 billion years old" is secular; "science says the Universe is about ~14.3 billion years old and therefore God doesn't exist" is not. Teaching irrelevant concepts such as God or Not-God alongside science will only confuse the lesson.
4. (PZ) "Oh, by the way, we exempt courses that teach about the Christian Bible from this requirement."
The law he links to:
"(A)(1) A school district board of trustees may authorize, to be taught in the district's high schools, an elective course concerning the history and literature of the Old Testament era and an elective course concerning the history and literature of the New Testament era.
(2) Each course offered must be taught in an objective manner with no attempt to influence the students as to either the truth or falsity of the materials presented."
I'm not going to dissect legalese, but it seems perfectly reasonable for a Bible studies course. If it were a course studying Hindu history and lore, would there be an objection? Should mentions of Greek mythology be excised from history lessons (which unlike this course, are required)? There's no doubt that the Bible is a historically significant document, in much the same way as the Epic of Gilgamesh is historically significant. Teach about it, but don't preach what's in it.
It looks like a secular law to me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 6:58 PM
Have you even been here?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 7:10 PM
I know it looks like a secular law, but knowing the author, his history and his motivations and then this included passage, I'm going to disagree that that is the ultimate intention.
This is in not so well veiled ways setting the foundation for an attack on Evolution. They claim, mostly erroneously mind you, that Evolution purports to explain the origin of life. Because there is no hand of god force in the ToE it denies that god is in anyway responsible by omission (in their eyes mind you). I fully expect this is the way they will go following in the failed footsteps of Peloza.
But again, this is Mike "Fail" Fair. His bills nearly always go no where. It's no coincidence that he puts them forward at this time of year.
Posted by: robotaholic
|
May 27, 2009 7:19 PM
it's recur not reoccur-
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 7:20 PM
bah typos
Posted by: RPJ | May 27, 2009 7:35 PM
[sorry, haven't read up on how to do quotes]
(Rev. BigDumbChimp) "I know it looks like a secular law, but knowing the author, his history and his motivations and then this included passage, I'm going to disagree that that is the ultimate intention."
I agree, I haven' heard of the guy before but from the description it sounds like his intention is anti-scientific. However, he does not choose how and when to enforce this law, so what is ultimately applicable is the words themselves.
To your quote: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life indeed, though the phrase is "origin of mankind". The ToE doesn't "specially" explain the origin of mankind any more than that of any other creature, but it is one of the implications of it. I would think that something as specific as the descent of man would be beyond the scope of a unit that is intended to simply introduce the concepts and mechanism of evolution; if a lineage is to be studied for an example, studying the horse or other creatures may be less "controversial", though that would be at the discretion of the teacher.
Regardless, I stand by what I said before; if the conversation comes about regarding human origins, then teaching "science shows the descent of man came about through the known mechanisms of evolution" is fine, but I would not support adding "and this proves the Biblical story false". Teach science and let students come to their own metaphysical conclusions.
If the above law is interpreted to exclude the secular wording I used as an example, then I would oppose that interpretation. But I would support it if it excluded only the second phrase.
Posted by: tsig | May 27, 2009 7:44 PM
South Carolina:
Too big for an insane asylum
Too small for a nation.
Posted by: Greg | May 27, 2009 7:57 PM
I believe the correct expression is;
Wait......wut?
Posted by: dkew | May 27, 2009 8:54 PM
So far, no one has cited any Supreme's case that equates atheism and religion.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 27, 2009 9:38 PM
Several commenters have claimed that Sen. Fair's # 5 - that the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment; is correct, but I have a few doubts.
I'm recalling that such a statement was made as a passing remark in a footnote or the like that was not considered binding, but haven't been able to track it.
I (NAL) did find this, from Justice John Paul Stevens in his 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree ruling:
and this (.zip), from Justice Felix Frankfurter in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940:
plus this (same source as above), by Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson, dissenting opinion in Zorach v. Clauson, 1952:
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | May 27, 2009 9:54 PM
Ignorance is bliss? WTF!
Every single creationist is hereby challenged. Demonstrate that your lives are 100% free of the advancement of science you so despise.
It's all or nothing baby! If you claim it, prove it. If you can't, then SHUT THE FUCK UP, earn and learn, and join the 21st Century!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 10:07 PM
Maybe we're talking past each other. By no means am I suggesting that that "evolution is true therefore there is no god" should be taught. It has no place in science class.
What I am suggesting is that by even just teaching the science of evolution the people of Mike Fair's type will see that as teaching something contrary to the bible and therefor refuting it. Bingo there's your violation of his proposed bill whether the teacher makes any claims about religion or not.
Posted by: Joe Cracker | May 27, 2009 10:11 PM
Evolution is true ... therefore "proves the Biblical story false" (especially that literal interpretation - creationism). That's pretty obvious ... as it proves other creation myths to be false.
You don't have to say it in class, it is obvious. Any rational person would come to that conclusion. So they will try to stop teaching evolution, mainly because it proves creationism false and it is a statement against their religion.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 27, 2009 10:13 PM
yawn
Posted by: JackC
|
May 27, 2009 10:36 PM
RPJ: It's really easy. Just type:
That's all there is to it. I used codes to get those angle thingies, the real thing looks like this:
If I can do it, anyone can!
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
May 27, 2009 10:43 PM
Oh crud. I previewed and everything. drat it all - that first one was supposed to have the lt and gt images on it. Sigh.
<blockquote>text goes in here</blockquote>
Let's see if THAT one works. Damned embarrassing when one is trying to impart what minimal knowledge one has.
If that doesn't work, I am giving up and going to bed (the secret seems to be to NOT preview it - because previewing turns the codes into the things, which then are properly interpreted on the actual submission. I hope....)
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
May 27, 2009 10:45 PM
Note to self: Sometimes previewing is not all it's cracked up to be.
JC
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 27, 2009 11:18 PM
If the majority of the people of South Carolina, through their duly elected representatives, decide to develop a curriculum that reflects their common values, then why shouldn't they exercise their parental right to educate their children in their core beliefs. Obviously, the people of South Carolina are living with the delusional belief that in a Democracy the majority has some say as to how they live their lives and how their tax money is spent on schools without having to forgo their beliefs in order to cater to the non-belief of an extreme minority.
Posted by: genesgalore | May 27, 2009 11:18 PM
praytell, what am i to do with all of these emails from jesus?????
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 27, 2009 11:37 PM
Obviously, the people of South Carolina are living with the delusional belief that in a Democracy the majority has some say as to how they live their lives
of course.
obviously you're under a delusional belief that we shouldn't have a federal government.
and also that we should still have:
slavery
women not able to vote
racial segregation
etc.
why is it you continually seem to need to flaunt your stupidity here?
Posted by: rev bigdumbchimp | May 27, 2009 11:39 PM
SF once again demonstrating little to no understanding of the constitution.
Speaking of SF did you do your homework on the Christian nation thread?
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 27, 2009 11:55 PM
Big:
"Speaking of SF did you do your homework on the Christian nation thread?
Yes, I did and I've come up with substantial proof for the existence of God. But I think I'm entitled to something in return. I would like you to present me with a transitional species - not one of those little lizard fossils that they have been harping over for the last week - but a real live link, half chimpanzee and half human - and then I'm going to smack you with the homework. That's about as fair a deal as you're going to get anywhere.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 12:03 AM
But I think I'm entitled to something in return.
nope, after all these months of evasion and insipidity, consider yourself entitled to be able to post at all.
You have a lot of ground to make up before anyone ever takes you seriously.
Posted by: John Morales | May 28, 2009 12:05 AM
SF, though it's way out of topic:
... a real live link, half chimpanzee and half human ... shows you misunderstand evolutionary science.
There is no scientific claim that humans are evolutionary descendants of chimpanzees, but rather that they share a common ancestor.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 12:08 AM
No you haven't you liar. I still have the last post on that thread, besides that thread wasn't about the "proof of god". Are you too lazy to even go back there and see? Or too scared, or willing to admit you don't have a fucking clue? Or just too fucking dumb?
You've just demonstrated you don't understand what a transitional fossil is you idiot. Your strawman version of what one is doesn't exist, nor does the Theory of Evolution claim it exists. Seriously, how much more of your blinding stupidity are you willing to display here?
You don't have an answer do you?
Because you didn't understand it then in the Christian nation thread and you sure as shit don't now.
Prove me wrong you incredible fucking idiot.
Posted by: Silver Fox | May 28, 2009 12:57 AM
"Your strawman version of what one is doesn't exist, nor does the Theory of Evolution claim it exists."
Forget the Chimp. Look, just show me one of those dryopithecines that evolved off the primate line some 30 million years ago. Now evolution does claim that it existed.
Posted by: John Morales | May 28, 2009 1:06 AM
SF, Dryopithecus.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 28, 2009 1:12 AM
Foxy Fox on the Run wrote:
I'm guessing that this means SF's interpretation of Christianity is one that excludes the prohibition on bearing false witness because - unless the definitions of the words 'substantial' and 'truth' have been changed since I last consulted a dictionary - that's a blatant fucking lie.
You've got nothing but assertions made without evidence or argumentation to support them.
Try again.
Posted by: Clayton Littlejohn
|
May 28, 2009 1:13 AM
Anything you can teach is either religion or non-religion. Methinks that this is just SC's attempt to trim its budget by getting rid of public education or some very clever prank perpetuated by some kid who loves vacation.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 28, 2009 1:27 AM
Re: # 50:
These Christians need to learn how to wave their hands vaguely, throw around the metaphors and symbols, and insist that evolution makes God even better than God was before, because now He's above science. Evolution strengthens faith!
Sastra, what a relief! I was worried you weren't getting my press releases....:)
Posted by: RPJ | May 28, 2009 1:58 AM
JackC: Thanks, I got it now, was a bit vague at first but viewing the selections source (should have thought to do that first) clarified it all for me. =)
If the people of SC were to theoretically vote that children in school must be lead in prayer to Allah several times per day, should they be able to? Don't hide behind excuses of "it would never happen". Assume that it does. Should such a law be enforced?
Why not? Why be specific about which transitional fossil you want? They all bolster the ToE. Virtually all fossils represent a transitional form (except for the ones that went extinct before becoming something else). If it was alive, then it would have nothing to do with a split that happened millions of years ago. And if it was half-chimpanzee and half-human, then it would in fact show that human and chimpanzee lineages have not completely split. If it was fertile, they would be the same species. The ToE predicts that one would not find a chimpanzee/human hybrid.Posted by: Ichthyic | May 28, 2009 2:06 AM
SF wants a cat-dog:
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | May 28, 2009 2:25 AM
He might as well worship that; it's just as real as his god - and far less monstrous.
Posted by: Dr. P | May 28, 2009 2:44 AM
@134
. Not just their tax money, federal money for a potentially unconstitutional protection of christian religions..the point has already been made(perhaps a little too subtley for you) that 'majority rules' does not apply when discussing the protection of constitutional rights.Posted by: Uncle_J | May 28, 2009 3:42 AM
Sounds like the concept of neutrality here means that all the school subjects that teach issues from non-religion point of view (like math, for example?) should include religious point of view too.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 28, 2009 4:04 AM
Foxy,like to point us to an instance of human fossils found with T rex ones?
YAWN
Posted by: John Morales | May 28, 2009 4:05 AM
Uncle_J, did you think you were being absurd? :)
Alas, not so. Gotta love the USA.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 4:23 AM
Rev. BDC @118,
In other places, yes, not in South Carolina. I'd love to have a look there one day, seriously. But I understand that the Venus fly trap is becoming an endangered species, so it appears that the swamps where they grow are being destroyed. Such a pity.
And Silver Fox, if you want to see a transitional form between a human being and a chimpanzee I suggest that you just look in the mirror.
Posted by: Drosera
|
May 28, 2009 4:26 AM
#154 was me.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 28, 2009 4:40 AM
I can't stand the religiotards who say "atheism is a religion". NO - absolutely not - religion is belief in the supernatural. How stupid do people have to be to say "you don't believe in the supernatural and therefore you believe in the supernatural"? Morons, every one of them.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 28, 2009 4:48 AM
Well there is a problem there,but like with my ex-wife,lies dont become more true by repeating them,and we just have to be aggressive about refuting this BS,and keep pointing out that atheism is the absence of belief in gods,just as we have pointed out here ad nauseam that bold is not a hair color.
I find that analogy pretty useful actually,people seem to get that.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
May 28, 2009 5:08 AM
bald,even
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 28, 2009 8:24 AM
Of course atheism isn't a religion. But the issue is complicated by the fact that the assertion that "there is no god" is a religious expression (i.e., it bears on a religious idea), and thus is owed the same First Amendment protections (and limitations) as other religious expressions, including those made by, or in the context of, religions.
This whole thread has been characterized by people who don't actually disagree arguing with each other, and I'm thinking that this subtle distinction between religion and religious expression is at the heart of that apparent dissonance.
Posted by: JackC
|
May 28, 2009 9:00 AM
It also "suffers" from the little thing that it is also an absolute statement. Generally, I tend to say something along the lines of "I am an Atheist to the extent that you are a Theist." It's a waffle I use to continue talking - though so many times, it is just not worth it.
After all, Engineers NEVER speak in absolutes.
JC
Posted by: JBlilie | May 28, 2009 9:18 AM
I repeat myself:
Atheism is not a religion, although believers (and crazy politicians) will sometimes assert that it is. Atheism fails to possess the key characteristics of religion:
1. It is not a system of beliefs (which is the reason why it's almost impossible to get atheists to agree.) One factor alone determines atheism: lack of belief in any God or gods. Disbelief in any gods doesn't constitute a religion any more than disbelief in fairies or trolls does. Of course, you may have some very vociferous and outspoken atheists who exhibit the metaphorical sense of religion: "he was religious in his rejection of all things supernatural." Everyone understands this sense of the word to be a metaphor: derived from the fervor and ritual conformity exhibited by many religious people throughout time for long enough for the characteristic to become recognizable and memorable to all.
2. Atheism does not include belief in anything supernatural ("beyond nature.") If a religion does not entail belief in something supernatural, then metaphysically it is simply an acceptance of the natural world as fact. It makes no sense to call such a thing "religion." It would rob the word of any meaning. We use the word religion to indicate belief in the supernatural: that is its function.
3. Atheism does not involve worship of any sort. It does not imply any worship.
4. There are no “priests” or “church” hierarchy in Atheism. There are admired atheists; but their pronouncements are not taken as “holy writ” as in religions. Rather, they are subjected to the same scrutiny and skepticism as anyone else. A casual look at any on-line atheist discussion board immediately shows how quickly prominent atheists attract (often vehement) criticism from their fellows.
5. There is no training or “confirmation” needed to be an atheist. One doesn’t even need to know they are an atheist: if they simply fail to believe in the supernatural, they are an atheist. No action is required by the atheist.
6. There are no: creed, catechism, holy books, oaths, or liturgy associated with atheism in any way. Again, simply failing to believe in any supernatural entities makes one an atheist by default: No action is required.
7. There are no rituals, rules of conduct, taboos, ceremonies, or any other social hallmarks of atheism, as there are in religions.
And:
8. Atheism doesn’t splinter into multifarious “sects” of atheism each devoted to their own particular opinion on the correct way to not-believe in the supernatural, each denouncing the others and perhaps even killing each other over fine points of disbelief. No one is starting groups of people who fail to believe in any gods in new and different ways (Re: Mormonism, Scientology, Crystal “power”, etc., etc.)
Any dispassionate assessment of atheism can only conclude that it is not religion. It is often grouped with religion simply because it is the main (only?) alternative to religion. This is convenient in book stores and libraries; but it says nothing about the actual nature of atheism. Atheism has only one thing in common with religion: It says something about gods – that there aren’t any.
People who accept the heliocentric configuration of the solar system, as revealed by science, do not have a religion of heliocentrism or a religion of anti-earth-centrism. People who accept the nature of the universe as revealed by science do not have to have a religion of naturalism (some may, who knows?). They don’t have a religion of “anti-supernaturalism” (though some agitate against religion.)
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 28, 2009 9:42 AM
Disgrace to genus Vulpes lying @ #138:
Then put it on the table. Quit whining and making childish demands, just show your evidence or fuck off. You are not entitled to anything, because you have not earned it. All you have done here is spread bullshit lies.
Your next post on this site will contain either this "substantial proof for the existence of god" that you claim to have, or an admission that you have no such proof and were lying when you said you did. This is not a request but a statement of fact, if you can't present your evidence then you clearly don't have any. Further whining will only make it obvious you've got nothing.
If you had a single solitary speck of evidence on your side, you would have presented it by now. You haven't. Get off your ass and do your work. Provide evidence to support your asinine claims, or go fuck yourself.
Posted by: fftysmthg | May 28, 2009 9:48 AM
Apparently atheism is a quasi religion. It's a religion when it's applied to this bill but,not a religion for tax purposes. It seems very convenient.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 28, 2009 9:53 AM
On the bright side, PZ... if wingnuts like this are able to somehow convince lawmakers that atheism is a religion, you should be able to exempt yourself from paying taxes for the money you generate from this online
churchblog.Wouldn't that send the Catholics into a frenzy? Heh.
Posted by: sikiş | May 28, 2009 9:56 AM
The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
Posted by: Tulse | May 28, 2009 10:07 AM
I'm not so sure about this particular point -- certainly much ink (real and virtual) has been spilled about "Neville Chamberlain" atheists, and what specific claims atheists can make about the lack of the supernatural, and the degree to which science and its practice is compatible with supernatural belief (e.g., NOMA and all that). These may be primarily points of politics and strategy rather than (non-)belief, but I'm not sure that's all that different from matters which have driven religious groups to fragment.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 28, 2009 10:11 AM
Bill D - 159 etc.
Our differences may seem subtle and there is lot of common ground.. but those subtle nuanced differences of statement and interpretation are important.
For example I would amend your example as a counter nuanced and necessary to say statement of fact:
"..there is no god [IN SCIENCE]" -- that is a fact of good science and not a religious statement. It is something science students must come to grips with - it is essential!
And the argument that many scientists believe in god or even in acts of god has no bearing on the fact that you cease doing science when you let your investigation end with "god did it."
Science cannot assume anything but a natural cause and look for it it. Therefore ".. there is no god [in science]" is appropriate and proper. God-science is antithetical. Science ceases when god is involved and vice-versa. To deny or cover up this essential is not honest (not accusing you Bill of anything - just saying).
Arguing we are not I suspect Bill - clarifying I'd say - because attention to nuances count in this war and we should assure we as allies are on the same page in the details.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | May 28, 2009 10:51 AM
Lemmee guess: it's either A. the existence of non-material values (I.E, love, hope, various human emotions/philosophical abstracts), or B. DNA as code.Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 28, 2009 11:09 AM
ConcernedJoe:
Not meaning to prolong an "argument" I've already argued isn't really an argument, but...
That is perfectly true, and a valid basis for all science teaching, but...
...I disagree, at least in part: "There is no god [in science]" is true, and the reasonably inescapable inference of the previous statement about natural causes, but it is neither "appropriate and proper" nor necessary to make that explicit assertion in a public-school classroom. It is perfectly possible to teach science without making any assertions about the supernatural, and that it the only appropriate way to teach science in a state-sponsored school where attendance is (for all practical purposes) compulsory.
The people who keep insisting that teaching science is necessarily the same thing as teaching atheism (not you, CJ, but some in this thread are straying pretty close to that position) are playing right into the hands of those, like the ironically named Sen. Fair, who seek to use a perverted interpretation of the First Amendment to attack all science teaching. I fear we make the equation between science and godlessness at the peril of our own objectives.
BTW...
Are you secretly Yoda? ;^)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 11:10 AM
SF dodging again. Why the hell did you pull "dryopithecines" out of your ass? Do you think this is some gotcha? Are you talking about all of the Dryopithecine complex or the specific genus of Dryopithecus? There are a number of fossils of Dryopithecus that have been found and a fair amount is known about the genus. I'm going to bet you pulled Dryopithecine out of your ass because you are working off some old outdated understanding of the dryopithecine complex that is still pointed to in creationist lit. A typical failure of creationists. Using old and outdated scientific understanding to try and make a point or prove something to discredit current scientific understanding or consensus. It doesn't work. It only manages to make you look even more idiotic.
Or are you one of those people who believe in Bigfoot and Skunk Apes and some manufactured link between these mythical beasts and the very real Dryopithecus? This wouldn't surprise me a bit. Are you wanting me to show you Bigfoot? A Yeti? Sasquatch?
Now back to my point. It takes a lot of effort on your part to remain as willfully stupid as you are demonstrating you choose to be. Why don't you put some of that effort into educating yourself instead of believing every bit of misinformation you obviously cling to.
Or how about just fucking off as your original comment on this thread is just another example of your stupidity to be pointed to and laughed at in the future and further proof that you couldn't care less about truth or being even nominally correct in the shit you spew here.
Lets see
1. American history - fail
2. Even cursory understanding of the Constitution - fail
3. Evolution - fail
4. demonstrating you have some "substantial proof of god" instead of unsubstantiated assertions - fail
5. correctly identifying and making a charge of logical fallacies - epic fail
Please, what other subjects do think you know something about that you care to display here? I could use a laugh.
Posted by: Stu
|
May 28, 2009 11:29 AM
Rev, you forgot:
6. Ubridled, pig-ignorant and misplaced swathes of delusional arrogance: win!
Posted by: Sastra
|
May 28, 2009 11:36 AM
Silver Fox #134 wrote:
In addition to the points on church/state separation and constitutional democracy != mob rule, there's another problem here. The "majority of the people of South Carolina" -- including the deeply religious -- actually do share the same values as the minority/non-religious when it comes to the teaching of science. They all agree that science is important, and that public schoolchildren deserve an education which gives them a good background in understanding the basics. This is not a case where the 'majority' wants to throw out the discipline wholesale, and replace it with religion, or basket-weaving, or 16th century poetry.
On the contrary, they want to improve the accuracy of the scientific knowledge being taught. And they mistakenly think that this means teaching children that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground among scientists.
They're wrong. They're just as wrong here as if they wanted to "improve" the teaching of history by including holocaust denial and alien-pyramid construction. They're wrong on the facts concerning evolution. And most of them don't realize it.
This isn't really a clash of ideologies and values, from the perspective of the creationists. If Sen. Fair were literally arguing against including science in the curriculum because "we don't care about science as a core belief," then that would be a different kind of fight. But as it is, "good science education" is a common goal. This is a clash between people who are factually mistaken, and people who aren't.
The first group is eventually going to lose. And, given the creationists' own stated core beliefs on the importance of accuracy and truth in education, they would be forced to agree that they would deserve to lose, if this is the case.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 28, 2009 2:41 PM
Nothing. Where in this thread did I say that's what you were saying?
Here's where our disagreement arises. I'm not saying that teaching science is the same thing as teaching atheism. I'm saying that teaching science correctly involves endorsing a theory of epistemology that is contrary to the values of any revelatory or mystical religion -- really, anything that necessitates anything "supernatural." And this is why I used the phrase "political convenience." You're saying that the above proposition means I'm "playing into the hands of Senator Fair." I interpret this as an assessment of the political convenience of such a proposition.
But I don't care if it's politically convenient even if I do care whether Fair gets his way. I think it's true which is more important to me than whether it's useful.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 28, 2009 3:04 PM
Proof is proof. You can have "substantial evidence", but there is no such thing as "substantial proof." If you prove something (given a set of presuppositions), then it is true. If you disprove it, it is false. It cannot be substantially true or substantially false that there is a God -- it is one or the other.
Any proof of God would eliminate faith as a means of finding God. If we can be certain through our analysis that God exists, then there is no need for faith. But isn't faith important to God? That's certainly the impression I get from some parts in the Bible.
The same argument actually goes for evidence. To the extent that one can justify belief in God through evidence, one does not need faith. Evidence invalidates faith.
So I have to ask. Assuming you did provide evidence for God, why? And what is the role of faith when God's existence is a fact?
Posted by: Dan L. | May 28, 2009 4:16 PM
After skimming through the Christian Nation thread, I've got to assume this quote means that SF wears velcro -- I don't know how else he could get his shoes tied. The topic wasn't at all whether God exists, and the homework was not proving that God exists. Nowhere in that thread did SF even try to argue that God exists, only that America is a Christian nation.
And argued it horribly.
So SF, if America is a Christian nation, why is it legal to break any of the first five commandments? (First four for Catholics/Lutherans.) Seven and ten are likewise legal, and nine is only illegal when the sin is committed in the course of testifying in a criminal trial. (Libel/slander are civil matters, so I don't consider either a crime in this context.) That is to say, of the ten most important principles in the "Judeo-Christian" ethical code, only two (and a half?)are enshrined in American law. Why is that?
For that matter, why aren't wives legally the property of their husbands rather than distinct people in the eyes of the law? Why are we a democracy rather than a monarchy (Christian nations have traditionally been absolute monarchies, wherein the monarch receives the right to rule through the grace of God)? Why don't we still have slavery (endorsed by the NT, which was used as a justification for slavery leading up to the Civil War)?
Why do no government positions explicitly require proof of enrollment in a Christian church? Or even professed belief in some form of Christianity?
Most importantly (and you ignored this one before):
Treaties are part of US law. So here we have an actual piece of US law that says "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation." That clearly refutes anything you have to say about the US being a Christian nation. By act of Congress (in ratifying the treaty above), it cannot be.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 28, 2009 4:57 PM
You are under no obligation to say every true thing in every circumstance... and if you doubt that, try telling your wife/girlfriend/date (or male equivalents, as applicable) that yes, those pants do make your ass look fat.
But seriously... not only are you not required to say every true thing in every instance, in some instances you're required not to say certain true things. For example, in a court of law, there are any number of things that must not be mentioned (e.g., the defendant's prior bad acts) even though they are indisputably true, because justice and the proper functioning of the legal system would be compromised if they were mentioned. In a similar fashion, the establishment clause of the First Amendment forbids state schools from making religious pronouncements in the classroom... including the assertion that science implies there is no god, which you and I both hold to be true. I don't consider that a mere "convenience": I consider it essential to the separation of church and state, which in turn is the jewel of our liberty.
On the purely political side (i.e., what we say to each other, as opposed to what teachers say to students in the classroom), you and I know that the assertion that "science implies atheism to a rational mind" is different from saying "teaching science is the same thing as teaching atheism," but I'm not confident in our opponents' ability to make that distinction... nor, for that matter, do they have any political incentive to recognize that distinction even if they understand it.
This SC bill is an effort to (falsely, of course) portray the teaching of evolution (and ultimately, all science) as a violation of the First Amendment. All I'm saying is that it would be prudent for us to be mindful of how much quotemine material we're giving the Bad Guys™. As much as I love Truth®, I really don't want to hear "see, even the evolutionists admit they're really teaching atheism" any more often that is absolutely necessary. YMMV.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 5:07 PM
SF is avoiding the issue and continuing to harp on his own little fantasy where he thinks he provided a juggernaut of evidence for a god and particularly his version. It's a deflection tactic, a transparent and weak one.
SF thinks he provided us with some great evidence, yet he doesn't understand that unsubstantiated assertions = evidence.
Regardless, SF still needs to go through the 501c3 tax code (that link is still there on the Christian nation thread SF) and find the areas that specifically address his misconceptions and outright idiocy on tax exemption for religious organizations.
He hasn't and I suspect he won't.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 28, 2009 5:11 PM
@Bill:
Tough. I'm going to say it if I think it's relevant. Quote miners will quote mine, and if we don't give them fodder, they'll make crap up. What's more damaging in my opinion is when we don't address questions with the appropriate intellectual honesty, such as failing to admit that science, properly taught, does privilege atheism. Of course, that is my own opinion, but your concerns about quote mining aren't going to stop me from speaking my mind.
If your next post is more of this:
"It might be true, but don't say it, mmkay?"
Then don't bother. You're not going to convince me that obfuscation is the correct approach.
I don't think this is quite true. First of all, it is completely valid to impeach the testimony of witnesses (including defendants) by establishing evidence regarding their character. While hearsay is prohibited, I'm fairly certain a witness in a murder trial could testify about a previous murder they had personally witnessed the defendant commit.
More saliently, testimony in court is usually rather constrained by the lawyers' questions. Moreover, lawyers will still mention those things that must not be mentioned (such as hearsay) because the worst that will happen is that the opposition will object and the judge will sustain the objection. Lawyers do this pretty frequently (from what I understand) because once it is out there the jury has heard it even if the judge asks them to disregard.
This mostly comes from civics class and high school mock trial team, so I'm happy to be corrected by anyone with trial law expertise.
Posted by: Dan L. | May 28, 2009 5:45 PM
@Bill:
I want to apologize in advance -- this was way more snarky and dismissive than I intended to be. I do see where you're coming from and you argue your position well, I just don't agree. And I am sorry if I've trivialized your comments here in my above posts.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 28, 2009 7:33 PM
humm fail
that of course should read
"yet he doesn't understand that unsubstantiated assertions != evidence."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 28, 2009 8:19 PM
Dan L.:
Re snark: No worries. I'm a big boy, and can take a verbal elbow now and then. Nevertheless, I appreciate the fact that you're sensitive to the tone of things.
Re my comment about evidence of prior bad acts: I oversimplified a bit because that example was tangential to the main point... but if I understand things correctly, a prosecutor may not mention a defendant's prior bad acts unless they are directly material to the current case (i.e., they demonstrate a pattern of behavior that includes the currently charged crime). That is, if you're on trial for murder, the prosecution cannot mention the fact that you were convicted on an unrelated charge of embezzlement 10 years ago, because to do so would prejudice the jury against you and would provide no information relevant to the current case. I may be mistaken, but I think violating this rule (esp. if the judge has already ruled the information inadmissable) might be grounds for a mistrial, or for reversal on appeal... not to mention, in extreme cases, sanctions against the offending prosecutor.
Of course, where you get your legal knowledge from civics class and mock trial, I get mine from obsessive viewing of Law and Order... so we might well both be wrong. No matter: Even if the example was bad, the point stands that sometimes there are perfectly legitimate reasons for not saying things that happen to be true.
As for...
Teaching something that, to a rational mind, privileges atheism is not the same thing as teaching atheism. I think it's critical that we are very clear about that distinction, because if the courts ever became convinced that teaching evolution is teaching atheism, then teaching evolution in public schools would instantly become illegal... and I really don't think that's a result anyone here is eager to see.
Make no mistake: The intent of this SC law is to cut the throat of evolution education (luckily, if I'm understanding RevBDC correctly, the people behind this are more like clowns than stone killers, but that doesn't change their intent), and the knife they want to use is the equation of evolution and atheism. I don't understand why you think it's "obfuscation" that I'd prefer we not hand them the fucking knife.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 29, 2009 10:41 AM
Join Bill and Dan, I will :-) [I cannot believe I did a Yoda earlier - LOL - watched part of Star Wars over weekend and it must have stuck in my feeble old brain!]
Bill not being argumentative .. want to clarify because I think (being presumptuous I admit - sorry) that Dan is in this pew too (we are all in the same church I think and even in the same section):
My "there is no god [in science].." comment had an implicit someone begged the question motivation. I think it would be unnecessary and not smart to say such a thing in a HS or less class off the cuff for no motivated reason. But totally appropriate if said as I fully stated if someone injected god as a motivator of natural things into the science discussion.
While I am rambling. I also hate it when we use the term atheism. An "-ism" to me needs an organizing body, a code, enforcement of sorts, and school of thought that is centralized and taught in some official way accordingly. That is an "-ism" has some "trademark" on fairly extensive school of thought and/or organization.
Sure there are "-isms" that many atheists gravitate toward e.g., Secular Humanism, Universalism, or even (ugh) Libertarianism alla Rand, but Atheism is nothing really when compared to say Catholicism, or even Positivism.
OK it may mean the philosophy of atheists - but so what! That only means at most "there is no god for any practical or theoretical purpose or reason." To extend it any further has no basis in philosophical officialdom.
I can be an atheist and believe and practice all sorts of weird and wild things. I can be atheist and believe war is the answer or peace is the answer or I can be pro-choice or pro-non-choice or pro-science or vehemently anti-science.
Atheism means nothing of substance - it is a vacuous "-ism" in the sense that it speaks properly to a rather minuscule aspect of one's beliefs, philosophy, actions, thoughts, etc.
We need to stop falling into the trap laid for us. We cannot allow our non-belief in the supernatural to be declared an patented "-ism." This opens up the charge that being an atheist makes one a part of a religion because god is explicitly addressed in that belief.
Would it be wrong to teach ABOUT Positivism? or Secular Humanism? No! Why? I can ascribe to either or both and still believe in a deity! The godiots really want those out the classroom - but we most insist that they have place because they legitimately do and they (certainly the former) has all to do with properly executed science.
Peace out. End of rant.
Posted by: whitebird | May 29, 2009 3:04 PM
Rev. BDC, I was keeeding about the flag...It just looks like the kind of imagery that might get Islamophobes' panties in a big, twisty bunch.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 29, 2009 3:14 PM
Now don't get me wrong, they'd love to institute their own little version of theocracy in South Carolina (and the rest of the states for that matter) but their history shows that they fail nearly every time they try and squeeze shit like this through.
And I'm not necessarily sure that they consider that a defeat.
Oh. Well...
Sometimes in the heat of .. blah blah
anyway
maybe someone learned from it
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | May 29, 2009 3:19 PM
Concerned
JediJoe:Sure. I never meant to suggest that science teachers shouldn't defend their curriculum against religiously motivated questions or attacks... but that's different from affirmatively declaring, from the "pulpit" of the public-school classroom, that science implies atheism.
To play out a little thought experiment, imagine you're a biology teacher whose unit on evolution is interrupted by a student's question: "Teacher, you tell us that evolution has happened over the span of tens or hundreds of millions of years, but how can that be when the Bible tells us the world is only about 6000 years old?" If you apply the standard that "there is no {place for} god [in science {class}]," you can respond: "Well, it's not my place to comment on your religious beliefs, but this is science class, and science deals with evidence, and the evidence tells us that the Earth is about 4.5 billion, not 6000, years old. That leaves plenty of time for biological evolution, and in fact the evidence proves that such evolution has taken place."
OTOH, applying the standard that we must straightforwardly admit that "science, properly taught, does privilege atheism" might tempt you to give a different response: "Well, the science proves that the world is about 4.5 billion, not 6000, years old, and that in turn proves that your Bible is superstitious bunk. In fact, if you're halfway intelligent at all, serious study of pretty much any branch of science will demonstrate to you that there's no need for any god belief to explain anything about the world, and thus there probably is no god."
There's nothing about the latter set of comments that (IMHO) isn't true... but if public-school science teachers started talking that way, it would [a] violate the First Amendment, which would be philosophically repugnant to me, and [b] give aid and comfort to the enemies of rational, secular science education, which would be (to borrow a phrase) politically inconvenient.
I really think this whole thread is an almost definitional example of what my engineer friends call being "in violent agreement"... or, as you put it, we may be sitting in different pews, but we really are all in the same (you should pardon the expression) church.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 29, 2009 8:07 PM
Bill - In the same pew we end I say!
You want some real fun and amazing forms of obfuscation go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/alvin_plantinga_gives_philosop.php. The masters of philosophical argumentation are getting our shorts in a twist.