Forgive Them, Lord, For They Know Not What They Do (response to "Why We Do This")
A Panda's Thumb article titled "Why We Do This" reported that Patricia Princehouse, leader of Ohio Citizens for Science, has received a Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award from the Playboy Foundation for her contribution to the successful campaign to have an evolution lesson plan deleted from the Ohio state standards for science education.
The interest of the Playboy Foundation in the 1st Amendment is probably based on: (1) the protection that pornography has under the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of symbolic expression and freedom of the press; and (2) the establishment clause's protection from state religions that might seek to censor pornography.
In her acceptance speech for the award, Princehouse said, "freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country." I disagree. The right that was saved in Ohio is basically the "right" to not be offended, which is not even in the Constitution. This "right" to not be offended was saved at the expense of the principle of the free exchange of ideas which is embodied in the 1st Amendment right of freedom of expression. That does not seem like good priorities to me. And Darwinists are abusing the 1st Amendment's establishment clause for the purpose of suppressing scientific ideas that they disagree with.
Incidentally, I opposed the Ohio evolution lesson plan for reasons having nothing to do with the absurd notion that it is based on creationism or ID.
The interest of the Playboy Foundation in the 1st Amendment is probably based on: (1) the protection that pornography has under the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of symbolic expression and freedom of the press; and (2) the establishment clause's protection from state religions that might seek to censor pornography.
In her acceptance speech for the award, Princehouse said, "freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country." I disagree. The right that was saved in Ohio is basically the "right" to not be offended, which is not even in the Constitution. This "right" to not be offended was saved at the expense of the principle of the free exchange of ideas which is embodied in the 1st Amendment right of freedom of expression. That does not seem like good priorities to me. And Darwinists are abusing the 1st Amendment's establishment clause for the purpose of suppressing scientific ideas that they disagree with.
Incidentally, I opposed the Ohio evolution lesson plan for reasons having nothing to do with the absurd notion that it is based on creationism or ID.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 5/19/2006 07:52:00 AM
4 Comments:
Princehouse said, "freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country." I disagree.
Well, at least you're honest ...
Yeah, that fight had nothing to do with religion. Which is why the creationists, er, "intelligent design" activists, er, "teach the controversy" people were the ones pushing it.
When you're not allowed to teach religion in public schools and you just switch tactics so you don't explicitly mention religion (except when you don't think anyone is listening), that doesn't mean that you're not violating the establishment clause.
Evil Bender said...
>>>>>When you're not allowed to teach religion in public schools and you just switch tactics so you don't explicitly mention religion (except when you don't think anyone is listening), that doesn't mean that you're not violating the establishment clause.<<<<<<
How do you "teach" religion without explicitly mentioning religion or anything religious? That sounds like quite a trick to me.
And how can you mention religion in a public-school class and think that no one is listening? That is what I would call a "reverse-hallucination," because hallucinations normally consist of perceiving things that are not there, rather than not perceiving things that are there! Normally, reverse hallucinations exist only in fiction, like the story of the "Emperor's New Suit," where the little boy said that the emperor has no clothes. However, I have heard of an actual case of reverse hallucination -- some primitive natives on an island could not see a huge visiting ship because they could not conceive a ship that was so huge.
When the Selman v. Cobb County textbook sticker decision is reversed, then we will finally know that things that neither mention anything religious nor contain religious symbols cannot possibly be violations of the establishment clause, except in the figments of some people's imaginations.
When you're not allowed to teach religion in public schools and you just switch tactics so you don't explicitly mention religion...
Of course they teach religion in schools, one of them being religious Hedonism, which is probably something that Playboy is interested in protection from any percieved threats.
For instance, in the pop-culture there is one sect of the religion of hedonism that has been based on self-defining as Gay© and the like. The claims and beliefs involved in "being gay" are inherently religious such as: making claims about your basic core identity (This is who I am.) and deriving ethics from core beliefs (I was living a lie but now this is the truth.) as well as self-defining and taking on an identity that is proselytized as being good to other people through your witness for your community (Coming out, etc.). Those are all traditional elements of religion. That is merely one of the "constitutional" religions because Leftists agree with immanence based religions but by their own degenerate standards both the Declaration and the Constitution are "unconstitutional" for mentioning the Creator and God.
Post a Comment
<< Home