I had previously written about how the city council in South Bend, Indiana wanted to purchase some land to the tune of $1.2 million, and give it to St. Joseph's High School for their athletic department. Clearly this kind of thing is a violation of the separation of church and state, so I fully expected that this wouldn't go unchallenged. On 9/7/2011, US District Judge Robert Miller Jr. issued an injunction to stop the transfer of land. Yay!
The watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed suit against the city. Whenever there's some overreach by government officials wanting to endorse religion, expend public money in benefit of religious groups, or some other church / state infraction, these guys are there in a prominent way. Go AU!
The city has 30 days to file an appeal. We'll be watching. I wonder if they'll do the right thing and drop it? Not holding my breath.
I wonder if you would feel the same way if this was the Mohammed School for Children (or something similar) instead of St. Joseph's.
ReplyDeleteOf course I would. The issue is government endorsement of religion, not any specific belief system.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, as a practical matter I think you'll have a hard time finding private schools funded by atheist organizations, compared to the vast numbers of private religious schools. But here you seem to be confusing science and religion.
ReplyDeleteIf a private entity (school, business, charity, etc.) qualifies for public money and they petition the government for those monies in a way consistent with rules for employment practices, non-discrimination, tax behavior, etc.; and if competition for these funds was open to any qualified applicant; then I would not oppose the use of public money going to these organizations. Are there any examples of, say, public grants to private schools that are at issue? Or are we just chasing a red herring?
You can't take individual rights (such as expressed in the Bill of Rights) and open them up to majority vote at the state / local level. The reason these rights need to be expressed at the national level is that minority rights need to be protected; such rights cannot be subject to majority rule.
If our country guarantees its citizens the right to worship freely, then a local community cannot restrict the rights of a minority of its members to practice their religion, even if it's different from the majority's religion. Similarly, the majority cannot force members of the minority to participate in their religious practices and beliefs. When you (a) require all children to attend public school and (b) have prayer in classrooms led by teachers, this is coercion of the worst kind. I have personal experience with this; this happened to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete> Atheism is a religion
ReplyDeleteWow, interesting that on the VERY SAME day that I post the "10 Myths Debunked" link I get one of the myths quoted to me. Heh. I'll just direct you to the link I added to the right sidebar.
Of course your kids can pray in school. They can pray anywhere they want, any time they want. The school just can't lead the prayer. If they're being told they can't pray quietly (and, how would anyone know, anyway?), that's wrong.
A private organization has to adhere to certain legal requirements such as non-discrimination in hiring practices. Religious organizations obtain public money all the time; that's not the issue. But they can't then proselytize, or refuse to hire someone based on religious beliefs, or participate in other religion-pushing activities. Funding, say, a private religious school where creationism (or any religious creation myth) is taught is obviously unconstitutional.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf we're talking about "creationism" as the belief that God created the world (for example, the story as told in Genesis), then yes, this is what I refer to as the creation myth, or more specifically the ex nihilo Christian creation myth. There are lots of such stories:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
To say that "creationism is a theory and evolution is a theory and all theories should be presented" is again to confuse the technical and non-technical senses of the word "theory." Creationism isn't a theory in the scientific sense; it's dogma. Evolution isn't a "theory" in the colloquial sense; it's a sound scientific model that explains a wide array of empirical evidence and observations from multiple disciplines. There is NO evidence that disproves evolution, and a huge body of evidence that supports the theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Let's also agree on the correct use of the word theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Creationism fails to qualify as a theory for many reasons. It does not conform to available empirical data or explain a class of phenomena. It does not make predictions about results of future observations. It contains arbitrary elements that cannot be questioned. It cannot be refuted. It supplies no tentative hypotheses. At best it is pseudo-science.
If you want to persist in the claim that creationism is a scientific theory in the same sense that evolution is, then you have to address these (generally accepted) limitations. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science
Denying anyone or any organization anything solely based on their religious affiliation, belief or unbelief is also against the first amendment and possibly several discrimination laws. Reading the article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the letter from Ian Smith, I am unable to determine if this is the case and will leave it up to the courts. If this was a proper grant process and the winner happened to be a religious affiliated organization; then denying them the right to win the grant is in violation of the first amendment. I cannot seem to find any non-bias court documents and/or detailed press releases about this transfer. If it is a true unconditional gift (without a grant process) then I will have to agree.
ReplyDelete