Tuesday, March 11, 2008


1 comment:

Mr.Murder said...

Goddess, could the following statement from a decision against teaching creationism in an Eastern Arkansas school district from the early 80's be considered precedence? It could be important for overturning money for religious initiatives being funneled out by the Bush White House to varied fundamentalists?

Could summaries from sections V(A,B,C, and D) apply to the notion of Intelligent Design or abstinence training as a form of establishment?

(A) That unconstitutionally vague guidelines for creationism as a model of science apply likewise to supposed justifications of abstinence training? That explanations within a range of guidlines generally understood to match religious contexts or conversations are likewise establishment grounds?

(B)That "untoward consequences" apply when this information is not consistently adhered for instruction. Similar to the conclusion that Act 590, in setting basis for instructing religious belief over observed science, intimidates teachers to the extent they feel compelled to teach nothing of relevance in the topic, if at all?

(C)That no legal merit exists to teach creationism(abstinance) as a counterbalance to views thought to prevail a different belief or standard. Were the views thought to be so, teaching another view in religious or social context opposite that would not be allowed, two wrongs don't make a right. Act 590 would not mollify what it claimed to address on the basis it were accepted, or correct the issue it seeks to address if its premise were valid.

The same can be claimed with abstinence training opposed to sex education.

Abstinence tries to establish a doctrine that overrides the discussion of such items or availability to information.

(D) The summary statement on the conclusion as it pertains to local standards, they should reflect the education that adheres religious belief has no grounds.

It should apply to all money given for religious initiatives.

"The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others."

This was Intelligent Design's forebear:
"12. The model act had been revised to insert "creation science" in lieu of creationism because Ellwanger had the impression people thought that creationism was too religious a term. (Ellwanger Depo. at 79)"

"23. The idea that belief in a creator and acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution are mutually exclusive is a false premise and offensive to the religious views of many. (Hicks) Dr. Francisco Ayala, a geneticist of considerable reknown and a former Catholic priest who has the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology, pointed out that many working scientists who subscribe to the theory of evolution are devoutly religious."

Cannot the same be said for some belief sets? Pagans celebrate the functions of life? Can some religions do so symbolically and still afford the benefits of contraception and prophylactics? Their beliefs do not hinge on their instruction outside the norms of those who share their belief. The further instruction re:fundamentalism in footnotes speaks to the Ralph Reeds of America.

Were there not other items of use in a history of sexuality that have modern equivalents today and be credited discussion? Would it not be a case of promoting ignorance as a form of abstinence? Would the existence of abstinence based instruction provide intimidation to teaching of subject?