Fang-Face writes “Once again the religio-political elements of Texas are attempting to violate church/state separation; by promoting SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM in a government milieu. Schools.
According to
a report at the First Amendment Center, publisher Holt, Rinehart & Winston caved in the face of a threat to their profit margin. The publisher excused the move as not being about censorship but about presenting alternative scientific viewpoints. The problem with that idea is that creationism is a solely religious viewpoint without any basis in science whatsoever. Plus, because Texas is the second largest procuror of textbooks in the U.S., although why they bother at all is beyond me, the inclusion of such religious material will be of national scope.”
Read the First Admendment…
…it does not say anything about separation of Church and State. It says
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nothing about separation. And it is not anywhere else in the US Constitution. Also, it says nothing about any law saying you are protected from hearing about religion. The freedoms in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are freedoms for people. Not freedoms to take away rights from other people so you are not “offended.” This is why, although I despise them, I think members of hate groups should have the right to free speech. And we should, and do, have the right to challenge them.
Personally, I’m not a real religious person, but get the Constitution right and stop adding things like “Separation of Church and State” that are not in it. Also. I believe that it makes sense to have different theories about the origins of life — esp. since there has yet to be any real proof that evolution, creationism, or any others off them is right or wrong. We just don’t know yet — that’s why they are theories. It makes no sense to limit the learning of students because of some false premise that it violates a clause in the First Amendment that does not exist. Besides even if it fif exist, I believe a very good argument can be made that the lack of a religion, is a religion for all practical purposes. Thus if you are teaching things as truth that go against a religious belief and not presenting other theories, you are more likely to be violating this mythical separation of Church and State then by not teaching about it — and most certainly closer to violating the “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof” that is in the First Amendment by CENSORING the alternative views of Scientific Creationism.
Theories
First of all, the origin of life and evolution are two different things. Second, it makes no sense to teach as science theories which have been discarded because of subsequent discoveries or which aren’t really theories in the scientific sense (although such topics may be appropriate for teaching about the history or nature of scientific thought). Third, it’s worth remembering that gravity is also a bunch of theories, but no one seems to mind that it’s taught as scientific fact.