Oh, goody, goody. Yet another case of lefty hypocrisy
A packet for educators issued by the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in conjunction with the NOVA program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” encourages teaching practices that are probably unconstitutional, a conservative organization stated on Tuesday.
“The NOVA/PBS teaching guide encourages the injection of religion into classroom teaching about evolution in a way that likely would violate current Supreme Court precedents about the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” said John West, vice president for public policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute, in a news release.
The 22-page document is a companion piece to the two-hour NOVA docudrama, “Judgment Day,” airing on most network affiliates Tuesday night. The film is about a trial concerning intelligent design that took place in Dover, Pa., in 2005. (snip)
“The Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansasthat the government must maintain ‘neutrality between religion and religion,’” said Randal Wenger, a Pennsylvania attorney who filed amicus briefs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case.
“Because the briefing packet only promotes religious viewpoints that are friendly towards evolution, this is not neutral, and PBS is encouraging teachers to violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause,” Wenger added.
We’ve seen many, many cases of teachers injecting the Muslim religion in to their classrooms, in some cases, for full weeks, over the past few years. And, heck, let’s face it, liberalism is a religion to them, just with other deities, such as the gods of Abortion on Demand, Global Warming as Caused By Man, the Nanny State, Sex Ed for Five Year Olds, and Raise Taxes On Everyone Not In My Monetary Bracket.
Should religion be allowed in schools? Yes. But should it be neutral? I would like to say NAY, however, since we were founded on Christian principles, and that religion is no longer treated with respect by the secular left-and not just in the schools, I have to say yes. Religion should be treated neutrally in a all schools. The last thing we need is progressives trying to discuss even more things that they do not understand. Or like.
Constitutionally, if the federal government is involved in any way with a school, then said school should not promote religion of any faith. They should be able to allow it, such as with a copy of the 10 Commandments, a Menorah, a Christmas Tree, even, yes, a copy of the Koran. Because the Framers did not want government promoting any one religion over another, turning it “official.” Their intentions were more in terms of say, promoting the Baptist Church over the Methodist Church. This stems from the way the Church of England was part and parcel of the English government.
So let’s keep most teachers, at least the secular ones, from talking about religion. Mostly because they will use it as a bludgeon against those who believe, and partly because most will have no clue what they are talking about.
PS: I am not saying that all teachers are bad and Godless. I know quite a few who are deeply religious and are good, responsible teachers. Most of them happen to be Conservative, of course.
Do you have an interesting post? Well, go ahead and leave a trackback, with a reciprical link back to me.
Sphere: Related Content
It looks like the Discovery Institute is confusing the “Teacher’s Guide,” which is, in fact, a separate document with no mention of religion whatsoever: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/pdf/3416_id.pdf
… with the “Educator’s Briefing (PDF)”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/media/nova-id-briefing.pdf
… which clearly states (p. 3) that the purpose of the booklet is to give:
…and is not intended to somehow dictate what teachers are instructed to use in the classroom.
Teach said: So let’s keep most teachers, at least the secular ones, from talking about religion.
I do agree that we shouldn’t discuss religious differences in the science class. Unfortunately those who believe science and religion are incompatible (rather than different ways of viewing the world) made it an issue in the public schools. The program is right to point out that by definition science cannot address supernatural causes because its methodology is confined to the natural world. Therefore science has nothing to say about the nature of God or about people’s spiritual beliefs. This does not mean science is anti-religious; rather, it means science simply cannot engage in this level of explanation.
By the way, the program airs on PBS tonight at 8:00 p.m. Anyone concerned about the future of science education in today’s schools should watch this program.
I watched this program last night. I think NOVA successfully demonstrated that Intelligent Design is not science. It also showed that the proponents of ID on the Dover Area School Board were young earth creationists with a clear religious agenda.
Why the hell are they discussing anything remotely religious? Where’s their precious separation of church and state? I vote for ZERO religious talk in the classroom. That is my responsibility at home.
Silke, IE may not be fully science, but, Darwinism damned sure isn’t either. Both are mostly based on faith. However, those who believe in Darwin are scared to have a competing viewpoint, while those who believe in IE are welcoming to teaching different viewpoints.
You have an excellent point, Stacy. There is a time and place for everything, and, if I had kids, I would not want any religion, except in terms of maybe a historical viewpoint, taught. The actual tenents should come from the home and church.
I don’t know what Darwinism is but I do know that the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection is as well tested and well supported as atomic theory or the germ theory of disease, etc. The fact that you equate it with faith tells me you don’t really understand what a true scientific theory is. It’s not about being scared of competing view points. It’s about promoting good science in our public schools. If you watched the program then you saw one of the leading proponents of ID (Michael Behe) state that his broad definition of a scientific theory would also include astrology.
If you are interested in investigating the multiple lines of evidence that support the theory of evolution (fossil, biogeographical, anatomical and molecular), I recommend this site:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
By the way…what is IE?