It is wrong to teach kids that censorship is OK
.
THE DOVER LEGACY --
THE TEACHER'S TURN TO STAY AFTER SCHOOL
Cartoon is courtesy of Uncommon Descent. This is not a legacy that Judge Jones should be proud of, but he has been criss-crossing the country giving speeches that brag about it. He now claims that his speeches are not about the Dover decision itself but are in support of judicial independence and "the rule of law," but the fact is that he would have no audience were he not well known for having made that decision.
===================================================
It just struck me that one very important factor that has not been considered in monkey trials is the effect of teaching kids that it is OK to arbitrarily censor even the mere mention of ideas that we disagree with. The same impressionability that makes kids susceptible to believing pseudoscience -- or even believing religion -- also makes them susceptible to accepting the idea that such arbitrary censorship is OK, which IMO is by far the worst of these susceptibilities in potential for long-term deleterious consequences -- it would give people tendencies to be intolerant and accept a fascist government. I am really kicking myself for not seeing this angle before. We should oppose arbitrary censorship wherever it raises its ugly head. Also, I am wondering why we have been hearing little or nothing from the people who are most affected by the censorship of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools -- the students themselves.
A Georgetown Law Journal article by Kevin Trowel says,
.
.
THE DOVER LEGACY --
THE TEACHER'S TURN TO STAY AFTER SCHOOL
Cartoon is courtesy of Uncommon Descent. This is not a legacy that Judge Jones should be proud of, but he has been criss-crossing the country giving speeches that brag about it. He now claims that his speeches are not about the Dover decision itself but are in support of judicial independence and "the rule of law," but the fact is that he would have no audience were he not well known for having made that decision.
===================================================
It just struck me that one very important factor that has not been considered in monkey trials is the effect of teaching kids that it is OK to arbitrarily censor even the mere mention of ideas that we disagree with. The same impressionability that makes kids susceptible to believing pseudoscience -- or even believing religion -- also makes them susceptible to accepting the idea that such arbitrary censorship is OK, which IMO is by far the worst of these susceptibilities in potential for long-term deleterious consequences -- it would give people tendencies to be intolerant and accept a fascist government. I am really kicking myself for not seeing this angle before. We should oppose arbitrary censorship wherever it raises its ugly head. Also, I am wondering why we have been hearing little or nothing from the people who are most affected by the censorship of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools -- the students themselves.
A Georgetown Law Journal article by Kevin Trowel says,
.
The challenge of education in a democracy is to balance individuality and autonomy with the needs of the state. The state requires that students become members of society, and it serves this goal by "encourag[ing] the political virtues so that [children] want to honor the fair terms of social cooperation in relation with the rest of society." To avoid homogenization, the "political virtues" must include "toleration and mutual respect, and a sense of fairness and civility" . . . .
. . . Civic education, therefore, must provide students with the tools to be active, critical, political, but tolerant citizens. This will sometimes put the goals of a system of civic education in conflict with the desires of individual groups or communities. (page 882 of journal, page 28 of pdf file)
.
Labels: Cartoons, Kitzmiller v. Dover (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/20/2007 11:28:00 PM
5 Comments:
> teaching kids that it is OK to arbitrarily censor even the mere mention of ideas that we disagree with. <
They are not censoring the monkeys that oppose evolution. They are just not allowing them to require presenting their dogma as scientific fact in science classes. I am sure that if the subject were mythology or mass hysteria, the anti-science crowd would be accommodated.
> it would give people tendencies to be intolerant and accept a fascist government. <
But you deny the known activities of facist governments!
> I am really kicking myself <
Join the crowd. We are always kicking your butt. That's why you don't like us.
> We should oppose arbitrary censorship wherever it raises its ugly head. <
Of course you can always excuse arbitrary censorship by calling the target "gossip".
ViW driveled,
>>>>>> They are not censoring the monkeys that oppose evolution. They are just not allowing them to require presenting their dogma as scientific fact in science classes. <<<<<<
ViW, I get a fair number of readers on this blog, but because of your abysmal reading comprehension skills and short memory, you are often the only one who forces me to repeat my arguments over and over again.
Evolution disclaimers do not actually teach criticisms of Darwinism. The Cobb County textbook stickers did not even mention any specific criticism of Darwinism. I assert that the "endorsement test" shows evolution disclaimers to be constitutional. According to the endorsement test, an evolution disclaimer merely reduces offense to those who for whatever reason are opposed to the dogmatic teaching of Darwinism and thus makes these people feel less like political "outsiders." The "Lemon test," with its "purpose prong," "effect prong," and fictitious "objective" or "reasonable" observers, simply cannot produce consistent results for evolution disclaimers because of the great subjectivity of the test and wide variations in circumstances between different cases. As I have pointed out, two court decisions against evolution disclaimers, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish and Selman v. Cobb County, both came close to being reversed.
> ViW, I get a fair number of readers on this blog, <
It looks like I represent almost a third of them. Out of the others, a substantial number of them likely come to read my posts.
No thanks are necessary.
Because of your belief that repeating falsehoods makes them true, you tend to sound like a broken record. Once one of your arguments has been shot down and you have been shown to be a fool, it is not necessary to repeat it.
>>>>>> ViW, I get a fair number of readers on this blog, <
It looks like I represent almost a third of them. Out of the others, a substantial number of them likely come to read my posts. <<<<<<<
You have no bases whatsover for such assumptions.
Also, it is easy for you to repeat yourself because you never say anything except to say that I am wrong without saying why. On the other hand, it is a hassle for me to keep repeating my valid arguments.
Try entering a formal debate competition and see how far you get.
> You have no bases whatsover for such assumptions. <
Except for your counter. I guess you have never checked it.
> you never say anything except to say that I am wrong without saying why. <
I always say why. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
> On the other hand, it is a hassle for me to keep repeating my valid arguments. <
If you don't make any valid arguments in the first place, it is impossible to repeat them. All you do is repeat your absurd arguments.
Try entering a formal debate competition and see how far you get. Oh, I forgot! You did, they were in courtrooms. You lost all of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home