Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Creationism Snuck Into N. Carolina Public School" video.

As long as the class is not an elective course than so what? This isn't violating the 1st amendment in that they are not establishing a religion. It doesn't violate the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. Now if the school made the class a requirement than it would be a problem. Nice fart noise by Kyle. I can see he is highly educated. There is some indoctrination by the left. They require the students to take a history course. In history they praise FDR but don't give a counter argument on how under FDR we saw for the first time a slow recovery from recession. Or how the Civil Rights Law in the 1960s can be unconstitutional and violate the 10th amendment. And how previous Civil Rights Laws were consider unconstitutional in some instances. Or the history or taxes. History classes do too much of praising the "good" of the federal government but not the tyranny of it. Also the US is leading the way in science and technology and healthcare research and innovation. We are doing fine. As said before, this is an elective course. It isn't required thus there isn't a problem.
1
Seán O'Nilbud Nice rebuttal. I will say I am still in the lead.
1
Eddie Malecki We are ranked near the top in innovation and technology of science. Germany is probably the only country ahead of us. We are investing in green energy as well. The problem is that there are government regulations that hinder that growth.
1
loki2240 First amendment: " 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." They are not establishing a religion. They would be if the class was required, it isn't. They are offering a class that an individual can take to study a subject they are interested in. They are not violating the constitution thus they this is allowed. Teaching creationism as "fact" isn't illegal either. You may not agree with it which is fine, but the school isn't requiring the students to take it, they are not requiring them to take a test on it to graduate, and with that they are not doing the "establishment of religion" as the constitution prohibits. The idea of an education is to expose individuals to different areas of life, to allow them to be creative and innovative and to promote open minded thinking. Offering a course like that is a part of it. I think more schools should offer courses on religions. Now they have to be elective because they can't force students to study religion but offering them something that they may be interested in studying is always a positive for education.
1
loki2240 Religion isn't being promoted here. It is being offered as a course that students interested in the subject are taking. If he local community wanted a course in atheism or Buddhism or other forms of religion than fine, they can do it if students are willing to take it and there are funds for it. It is the same in a foreign language class. Most schools offere Spanish and French, but they lack the funds and interest to offer other courses (as in German or Chinese and so on). There is an interest in the subject and there are funds for it. But no one is being forced to take the course thus a religion isn't being established. Offering a course on religion is constitutional as long as it is elective. Your last paragraph is basically saying that you want schools to be indoctrination. Offering a religious course go against something you believe in thus you don't agree with it. There are great reasons to offer courses on religions in that it doesn't give students the opportunity to study a subject they are interested in and learn something they possibly knew little about. But it has to be an elective. It is no different than if a school offered a course on Chinese culture. The idea of religion is to expose individuals to new thoughts and ideas an what goes on in life. To promote creativity and problem solving skills. To open people's minds to new possibilities. Basically you want schools to stick to 2+2=4 and teach students how to regurgitate what is told to them. Offering a religious course that is an elective is constitutional. It isn't promoting a religion and isn't establishing one. Saying that offering a course on religion is promoting it is like saying that offering a course on the history of Russia is promoting communism.
1
loki2240 They are not promoting religion. I really don't see where you are getting that. They are also not establishing religion thus what they are doing is constitutional. They would be promoting it if they were making the class a requirement or allowing students to use the class to replace a requirement to graduate. They are not, this is simply an elective. There is a legitimate purpose for a course like this. Individuals may have an interest just like if they were to take a course in Spanish or a music course. They may be in a situation where they are unable to learn about the subject elsewhere thus the course would benefit them. Thus it is valid to have a course like that. They are following the constitution. Not following it is indoctrination. As I said, if a group of atheists or Buddhists or Jews wanted a course in schools that taught their respective then the school will have to do it with the only excuse not to being lack of interest or no one being able to instruct he course. Like not every school offers calculus or AP courses. You can't say that creationism is a fact or not or if religions are fact or not. You are getting into philosophy here. Some people believe it is fact and after taking a course in religion people are free to make that decision. After taking that course they can either say religion is fact or have a way to counter it and criticize religion. By simply not allowing the course to be offered is basically forcing religion and he subject itself to be hidden. That is indoctrination. Just because someone took a course teaching creationism as a fact doesn't mean they will believe it. What I don't like is hiding certain subjects from our children by not allowing them to be taught in schools. No public school can promote by making it required or establish a religion with forced prayer. But they are allowed to offer, as an elective, religious courses. That is beneficial to society in that people are expose or able to learn about different subjects. I agree that teaching children, especially at a young age, religion can be indoctrination. But hiding religion from individuals is indoctrination as well. I was raised in a religious family. After years of that and then attending college I am not religious. I respect it, I just can't follow it or believe in it. It was my exposure to religion that helped me establish that.
1
loki2240 Yes there will be more interest in funding Christian courses, but if a community wanted to teach atheism in schools and there was funding for it and an interest in students than the school must allow it.
1
Eddie Malecki Way to pull a stat out of your ass. Any scientist that is honest and respectable will realize that you can't say religion is a fact or not. Also they will agree that science and religion are not related and can't be compared.
1
Eddie Malecki"Religion is a culture of faith. Science is a culture of doubt" Richard Feynman My favorite scientist by the way (I am pursuing my PhD in Physical Chemistry).
1
loki2240 They are not promoting religion in that they are not making it required, you also don't don't have to believe it. Plus the constitution doesn't say promote, it says establishment. There is a difference. Churches do promote religion in that they do hold it in high regard. While they don't force people to attend the church is strictly there to embrace a religion. This school doesn't hold religion in high regards because they are not making the course required. The school is there to embrace education. Them offering a course doesn't mean they are promoting the subject, they are just offering it. As a hole they are promoting education and that course is a part of it. I didn't say that the school is favoring any other religion. If they are than that would be unconstitutional.
1
loki2240 Science and religion are not the same. You can't compare the two. Religion is faith, science is doubt. The scientific method, and science as a whole, don't "prove" anything, it just gives evidence to support a theory. The young earth belief isn't science because it can't survive the scientific method. It doesn't "disprove" young earth, it just makes it an irrelevant theory in science compared to stronger supported theories.
1
loki2240 How am I a troll? Because I don't agree with you? Or you have nothing relevant to say and just resorted to name calling since you don't know what you are talking about. On the subject of science I do know a lot about. I am pursuing my PhD in Physical Chemistry.
1
loki2240 Creationism is a theory, it just doesn't survive the scientific method and thus isn't supported in science.
1
Brian Williamson The first ruling was a poor ruling unless the school was forcing children to take the course than it was a just ruling. The second ruling was just in that creationism is not science. We have seen this in the past where a ruling from a handful of Justices has reshaped and misinterpreted the constitution. In the first court case you mentioned it went on a 8-1 ruling, there was at least 1 justice that felt it was constitutional. The constitution was not to be questioned which is a problem we have a times. As long as the school is not making the class required, and as long as the school allows teaching of other beliefs if there is an individual who is willing to teach it and there is enough student interest, than it is constitutional.
1
Brian Williamson Assault, theft, threats of violence and vandalism are illegal. Everything else the individual has to deal with themselves. The government isn't there to force what is moral and what isn't. If someone is being ridicule because they refuse to confirm to a local community's expectations than that person needs to move. It happens a lot more than you think. Creating a government that makes laws to prevent people from being mean to others is oppressive in itself. Just because someone is bullied doesn't mean we need to create a government that has the ability to oppress. Putting religion in school is another part of education. You can' blame individuals for being wrong in themselves.
1
Brian Williamson There is a place for religion in the public square, this is a great example. It is offered as an elective course to students who will find an interest in studying it. It isn't being forced on anyone and thus is constitutional.
1