Unscrupulous Ed Brayton won't let me reply directly to his potshots

That despicable dunghill Fatheaded Ed Brayton has some rotten nerve posting blog articles attacking this blog while denying me the opportunity to respond on his blog. Two such articles on his blog are here and here. And some lousy dunghills who submit comments to this blog accuse me of arbitrary censorship of comments while seeing nothing wrong with what Fatheaded Ed does.

I do want to reply to Ed's statement, "Believing something different from Jews makes one anti-Semitic?" No, I did not mean that these Cafeteria Christians are anti-Semitic just because their beliefs are different from those of Jews (particularly fundamentalist Jews). IMO what makes these Cafeteria Christians anti-Semitic is their dishonesty -- they claim that the Old Testament is one of the foundations of their faith, they often call their faith "Judeo-Christian," and they praise the Jews as their predecessors in the Judeo-Christian faith, and then they turn around and reject the Old Testament's creation story while accepting the New Testament's gospel as literal truth, even though the creation story makes much more sense than the gospel, as I pointed out in a previous post:
.

To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural, but the bible's creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. And the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god (except for the fact that god had to rest after all that hard work of ordaining creation for six days) whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.

It is true that many Jews -- particularly non-orthodox Jews -- also deny that the creation story is the literal truth, but at least they don't look inconsistent by accepting the far less credible gospel at the same time.

Also, the Catholic Church went so far as to exclude anti-evolutionists from a recent Vatican-sponsored conference on evolution. And the Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests also represents a rejection of the Old Testament -- Genesis 2:24 says, "therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife," with no exception given for Catholic priests.
.

READ MORE

Another Darwin-lover

The villainous Jew-hunting Nazi Col. Hans Landa, from the movie "Inglourious Basterds"

READ MORE

NCSE publishes Stupid Steven's drivel

A report written by "Stupid Steven" Schafersman, which he claimed was published in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, May-June 2009, v. 29, no. 3, barfed,

The periodic SBOE textbook adoption and review circus will remain with us. Every six or seven years scientists, science teachers, and science advocates must descend on Austin to defend the accuracy and integrity of biology textbooks from the attacks of Creationists both on and off the SBOE. This disgusting textbook adoption sideshow is demeaning and embarrassing to Texas and is a necessary waste of time to practicing scientists who have better things to do, but must take the time to defend the textbooks. The standards submitted by the science writing panels would have prevented the worst of this, but now we will see it again in its full nauseating stench in Austin in 2010 or 2011 (depending on when the textbook Proclamation is adopted). Texas citizens should be disgusted with this faux-democratic, oligocratic display of power politics, for most SBOE members know how they will vote years before the hearing commences. They will vote to further their Fundamentalist Christian beliefs by trying to undermine and damage science education in Texas. Others plan to vote to uphold the high qualities of professional science education by resisting the Creationist attacks on science textbooks. All the effort will be focused on persuading the swing eighth vote that gives the religious right radicals a majority. If they can reject a single biology textbook, the other publishers may capitulate rather than lose hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. Then the censorship I have witnessed many times over the decades in Texas will begin again

A lot of Darwinists are virulently intolerant of the slightest whiff of criticism of evolution in the public schools.

Once, when it was Schafersman's turn to speak at a meeting of the Texas board of education, then board chairman Don McLeroy remarked, "guess who's next."

IMO it is much better to have K-12 teaching controlled by the state board of education rather than by the college professors and K-12 teachers. The SBOE members are elected and are hence directly accountable to the public -- the college professors and the K-12 teachers are much harder to get rid of.

READ MORE

"Inglourious Basterds" and the problem of Jew identification

I went to see the recently-released movie "Inglourious Basterds" -- a holocaust-themed movie -- because I wanted to see how it handled the problem of Nazi identification of Jews and non-Jews in the holocaust. I have long contended that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. Of course, the movie glosses over this problem of Jew identification -- the Jewish characters in the movie don't even look Jewish. Also, the movie begins with Nazis hunting Jewish farmers in the French countryside; if you are going to exterminate six-million Jews, you can't afford to spend much time hunting individual Jews.

The movie begins with a lot of pointless atrocities which to me did not really contribute to the movie, but the movie later has a lot of good suspense.

It was very sad about Shosanna and Frederick (pictured) -- in different circumstances, they could have had a very good relationship.

According to this article, the proliferation of holocaust-themed movies has reached the saturation point.

If you have not seen the movie, I recommend that you don't read the Wikipedia article about it, as that article will spoil the plot.

READ MORE

Religion wrongly considered to be sole cause of Darwin-doubting

An interview of Chris Mooney in the Los Angeles Times says,

Religion: How has it deepened the divide between Americans and science?

It's been there forever. There really is a huge history of not being able to grapple with this issue in the U.S. Other countries have handled it better in many ways. There is just a ton of data on Americans, why they don't accept science, particularly evolution, and what their views on religion are. And there is zero doubt that religion is the block.

"Zero doubt that religion is the block"? Baloney. Religion is a contributory block, but it is certainly not the only block. A previous post on this blog says,
.

A Pew Research Center report says,

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

The above poll results do not take into account the importance of the strength of the scientific evidence that contradicts religion. IMO the stronger the scientific evidence, the greater the tendency of people to accept science over religion. For example, geocentrism [link], like creationism, is supported by the bible (also, re: the conflict with Galileo, geocentrism was once an official doctrine of the Catholic church), but practically all fundies accept heliocentrism because heliocentrism is based on direct observations and is plausible. In contrast, evolution -- the macroevolutionary kind -- is not based on direct observations and is not plausible. Also, more people accept an old earth than accept evolution because an old earth is plausible, even if not based on direct observation. So I was a bit surprised by the above poll data because I thought that the main reason for people's non-acceptance of evolution was a belief that evolution is not plausible on scientific grounds, not that evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, the above poll results only give the "main" reason for non-acceptance of evolution, whereas some respondents may have had two or more reasons, e.g., both science and religion, so perhaps more than just 14% of those who did not accept evolution believed that scientific evidence was lacking. As for myself, a belief that the scientific evidence is inadequate is my sole reason for my non-acceptance of evolution -- religion has nothing to do with it at all. And I am more influenced by my ideas about coevolution than by Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity.

Loony Mooney continued,

Religion is the reason they think they can't accept evolution. That's because they are told by their pastors from the pulpit, all across the country, that evolution is an assault on their identity, their moral universe and their ability to raise children who get taught this. So there's been an attempt to create a hermetically sealed environment in the conservative Christian community that keeps this stuff out. And that's a huge problem.

The world of science is very angry about this, and justifiably so. They are sick of playing Whac-A-Mole with the anti-evolutionists. Every year, maybe more than every year, there's a new battle.

"They are sick of playing Whac-A-Mole with the anti-evolutionists"? LOL What a jerk. There are lots of anti-evolutionary "moles" that have not been successfully "whacked." I am glad they are getting sick of it, though -- it shows that we are finally getting to them.

What can scientists do to bridge the gap?

They can learn about everybody else. They can understand everybody else and understand what the blocks are. What's preventing people from embracing science? We know it is religion, but do we really know why people are creationists? When I look at how many scientists approach the evolution issue, I don't see that understanding.

If I read ScienceBlogs, what I see are endless eloquent refutations of the creationists based on science. It's been done to death. Obviously, that doesn't convince anybody. And that's because people who don't believe in evolution are not driven by scientific considerations. So that's not how you should be trying to reach them.

"And that's because people who don't believe in evolution are not driven by scientific considerations"? Bullshit -- many are.

In an earlier op-ed -- which has attracted a lot of criticism, especially from Darwinists -- Chris Mooney and his sidekick Sheril Kirshenbaum said,

A smaller but highly regarded nonprofit organization called the National Center for Science Education has drawn at least as much of the New Atheists' ire, however. Based in Oakland, the center is the leading organization that promotes and defends the teaching of evolution in school districts across the country.

The NCSE is "highly regarded"? Not by a lot of people! To a lot of people, the NCSE really sucks.

Mooney's and Kishenbaum's op-ed says of the NCSE,

In this endeavor, it has, of necessity, made frequent alliances with religious believers who also support the teaching of evolution, seeking to forge a broad coalition capable of beating back the advances of fundamentalists who want to weaken textbooks or science standards. In the famous 2005 Dover, Pa., evolution trial, for instance, the NCSE contributed scientific advice to a legal team that put a theologian and a Catholic biologist on the stand.

I was astonished that the Dover plaintiffs had the chutzpah to choose a theistic evolutionist as a lead expert witness in a establishment clause lawsuit, and was also astonished that the judge tolerated such a choice. It would have made much more sense for the plaintiffs to choose, say, PZ Myers, who would get up there and testify that he metaphorically pukes on the shoes of accommodationists who try to appease cafeteria Christian theistic evolutionists.

As I have said many times: to be accepted as the literal truth, both the gospel and the bible's creation story require belief in the supernatural, but the creation story otherwise makes much more sense than the gospel. The creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. The creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god whereas the god of the gospel is a weak and limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world.

Jerry Coyne said in response to Mooney's and Kirshenbaum's op-ed,

The “new atheists” have been on the scene for exactly five years, beginning with Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, published in 2004. But American’s attitudes to evolution have been relatively unchanged (with 40+% denying it) for twenty-five years. This means two things:

a. American illiteracy about evolutionary biology cannot have been due to criticism of religion by the “new atheists.”

b. The dominant strategy of scientific organizations engaged in fighting creationism over the past twenty-five years has been accommodationism: coddling or refusing to criticize religious people for fear of alienating those of the faithful who support evolution. This has been combined with incessant claims that science and religion are perfectly compatible. This strategy has not worked.

So as Coyne points out, the NCSE folks and other accommodationists are stubbornly continuing to pursue a failed strategy. But Coyne, like the accommodationists, fails to understand that one of the big reasons why the strategy has failed is that religion is not the only basis for Darwin-doubting; the inadequacy of the scientific evidence is also an important basis -- perhaps even the most important basis -- for Darwin-doubting.

Ironically, what originally attracted me to ID was that it is not based on religion. But the Darwinists are insisting that ID is only religion and many of them would rather talk about religion than talk about science.
.

READ MORE

Badly flawed NCSE report on state standards for evolution education

IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS, THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?

================================

The infamous National Center for Science Education has released a badly flawed new report on state standards for evolution education. The report starts out by saying,

When it comes to state science standards and evolution, we at the National Center for Science Education sit up and take notice, for there is perhaps no other arena in which the religious controversy surrounding evolution plays out to such a detrimental degree as in the generation of poor science standards. . . .

In practice . . . the coverage of evolution in science standards can be less than adequate, not because the topic is scientifically controversial but because officials either have a specific religious agenda or don’t want to “ruffle creationist feathers” (Lerner 2000).

There we go again with that propaganda myth that the evolution controversy is entirely religious and not at all based on science. If fundies' scientific views were entirely based on religion, they would all believe in geocentrism because that is what the bible teaches.

The report says,
.

Even if a good treatment of evolution in state science standards does not guarantee that evolution will be taught well, it provides a critical resource for teachers who want to teach evolution correctly. The clearest example is that a good treatment of evolution in the standards provides important support for biology teachers facing protests from creationist students, parents, and administrators who want creationism taught, or evolution not taught, in life science courses.

The big issue is not teaching creationism or not teaching evolution -- the big issue is balanced teaching of the scientific evidence for and against evolution. The majority of the public supports such balanced teaching.

A good treatment of evolution in state science standards can help to persuade administrators that the teaching of evolution is not a matter for political negotiations between parents and teachers with different interests but a clear educational necessity.

Students, parents, and citizens in general need to fight back against lousy Darwinist teachers and school administrators who try to use state science standards to beat us over the head. We need to be especially hard on teachers who constantly talk about evolution being the "foundation" of biology.

. . . in general, over the last two decades, creationists have reduced their advocacy of state-level legislation and policy that explicitly endorse creationist claims or attack evolution. Blanket bans on evolution and policies requiring “balanced treatment” of evolution and creationism have given way to more innocuous language, such as “teaching the controversy,” “critical analysis,” “strengths and weaknesses,” “academic freedom,” and “discussing the full range of scientific views” (Branch and Scott 2009).

The NCSE calls the above terms "creationist jargon" (another name for them commonly used by Darwinist propagandists: "creationist code words"). Evolution News & Views has an article about this.

As the foundation to the entire science of biology, evolutionary theory is vast and complex, resting on a variety of evidential bases from a number of scientific fields — all of which students are generally being introduced to for the first time in high school.

There we go again with that nonsense that evolution theory is "the foundation to the entire science of biology." How can that be true if 13% of science teachers in a recent national poll agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that an excellent biology course could exist that does not mention evolution or Darwin at all (even I don't agree with that statement)?

Students will not finish learning about it in detail until, at minimum, their later years of college, and they will not begin seriously analyzing it and synthesizing their knowledge until graduate school.

That's ridiculous -- many people do not go on to college and of those who do, probably most do not study biology there, and certainly most people do not eventually study biology in graduate school, so high school is most people's only opportunity to study evolution in a classroom setting.

Expecting high school biology students to be able to evaluate evolutionary theory is no more reasonable than expecting high school physics students to evaluate quantum field theory.

Not so -- quantum field theory might require a knowledge of mathematics beyond the level of high school students.

If students had the necessary knowledge and skills to make such judgments, there would be little reason for college science courses!

That's ridiculous.

This NCSE report rates the evolution education standards of each state. The rating system is completely arbitrary. There is a maximum possible 110 points -- I am ashamed to say that my home state of California is one of only two states that got perfect scores (the other state is New Jersey). Two states, Alabama and Louisiana, got 25 points knocked off for "disclaimers," though ironically one of the main purposes of disclaimers is to reduce opposition to the teaching of evolution (perversely, Kitzmiller v. Dover and Selman v. Cobb County struck down disclaimer statements that were adopted to reduce opposition to a newly adopted heavily pro-Darwinist textbook). Several states got up to 25 points knocked off for "creationist jargon" (examples of "creationist jargon" are above). The Florida state science standards were praised for misdefining "scientific theory" as being "well-supported and widely accepted" by definition; that's ridiculous -- there are strong scientific theories and weak scientific theories. The Florida standards' ridiculous statement that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" is not mentioned.
.

READ MORE

Fatheaded Ed gets "Friend of Darwin" Award

Fatheaded Ed Brayton announced that he received the National Center for Science Education's infamous "Friend of Darwin" award from Wesley "Ding" Elsberry. And Fatheaded Ed was actually proud to receive the award.

READ MORE

Chris Comer appealed!

Like practically everyone else, I thought that Chris Comer did not appeal the federal district court decision rejecting her wrongful termination lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. Now -- out of the blue -- the National Center for Science Education announced that Comer filed an appeal! The appeal was timely filed on April 30 and here is Comer's opening appeals brief, dated Aug. 7. All of the important documents in both the district court and the appeals court are listed and linked here (the list was originally created before the appeal was filed and the appeal documents were added later). I am especially surprised that the appeal was not previously announced by either or both the NCSE and/or Steven Schafersman of the Texas Citizens for Science, who was also very close to Comer. Also, I feel that the TEA was obligated to report to the media that Comer had appealed. It is especially disturbing that now the TEA must prepare its sole appeals court answering brief in a few days without the opportunity to consider input from the general public.
.
Chris Comer has her own post-label group of articles on this blog (the post-label groups are listed in the sidebar on the home page).

Comer's opening brief asked for a de novo appeals court review of the lawsuit. A de novo review would mean that the lawsuit would be treated as though it were a new lawsuit, i.e., with no prior review of the lawsuit by a court. I know that the 9th Circuit appeals court's policy is to make de novo reviews of lawsuits that were dismissed for lack of standing. However, Comer's lawsuit is in a different appeals court circuit and though the TEA challenged Comer's standing, the district court decision appears to be based on the merits, not on lack of standing. If a de novo review is granted, then completely new issues and arguments may be introduced in the appeals court.

As I said before, Chris Comer has an extremely weak, virtually non-existent case. Here are my arguments against her lawsuit:

(1) The Texas Education Agency had a right to have a policy of neutrality regarding issues that are subjects of upcoming hearings of the Texas Board of Education.

(2) The TEA's neutrality policy was created for the purpose of making the Texas BOE hearings more fair and was not created for the purpose of promoting or advancing religion or creationism. The judge ruled (page 18),

As a matter of law, the Agency's neutrality policy, if it advances religion at all, only does so incidentally. Further, a reasonable observer of the neutrality policy would not believe the Agency endorses religion through the policy.

Deciding on a case-by-case basis when an exception to the neutrality policy is justifiable would be an excessive burden on the TEA. Furthermore, Chris Comer took it upon herself to decide to make an exception to the neutrality policy. Also, there is no evidence that she had constitutional issues on her mind when she decided to make an exception to the neutrality policy -- at the time, she said that her reason for sending out the email was that she found the speaker's credentials to be impressive.

(3) Constitutional issues that could arise in upcoming Texas BOE hearings deserve the same TEA policy of neutrality as other kinds of issues that could arise in upcoming Texas BOE hearings. The judge ruled (page 16),

Given the reasons for the Agency's neutrality policy, Agency staff must remain neutral on disputed curriculum issues regardless of a particular position's merit or constitutionality.

Constitutional issues are especially sensitive here because of claims that terms like "strengths and weaknesses," "analyze and evaluate," and even "theory" are "code words" for teaching creationism. There is a lot more involved here than just the issue of openly teaching creationism. Also, neither Chris Comer nor Barbara Forrest -- the speaker whose lecture Comer announced in her email -- are attorneys and so they should not be considered to be qualified to officially give or endorse legal advice on constitutional issues in public education. Comer's "FYI" announcement of Forrest's lecture could be considered to be an official endorsement of legal advice and hence an unauthorized practice of law. "FYI" means "for your information" -- it doesn't mean "for your information or possibly misinformation."

(4) Court decisions concerning actual teaching do not apply here because no actual teaching is involved. Comer's lawsuit ridiculously equates (i) a neutrality policy concerning upcoming public hearings and (ii) endorsement of teaching creationism in the public schools.

(5) The maxim "silence means consent" would mean that the TEA's silence on the issue of teaching creationism means that the TEA consents to the various court decisions on teaching creationism. However, one source says,

This is not a principle accepted in modern English law. However, Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) is said to have riposted with the Latin maxim when asked at his trial why he kept silent when asked to acknowledge the King's supremacy over the Church. Cf. L. qui tacet consentire videtur, he who is silent seems to consent.

.

READ MORE

Don McLeroy disappoints

Don McLeroy, Texas board of education member and former chairman of the board who led the fight for balance in evolution education, is unfortunately a religious crackpot. For example, he wrote,

“Freedom is unique to the areas of the world that have been touched by Christianity."

McLeroy is just plain wrong here. For example, the US Constitution owes a lot to the influence of the democratic system of government of the Iroquois Confederacy of Six Nations.

Contrary to what many Darwinists claim, one does not have to be a religious crackpot to support balance in evolution education.

READ MORE

Scientific papers say coevolution is a big problem for evolution theory

For about 3-4 years now, I have been arguing that coevolution is a big problem for evolution theory, but stupid ignoramuses like Kevin Vicklund have been pooh-poohing that coevolution is no problem at all for evolution theory. I have now found some scientific papers that back up my position. One paper's abstract says, "Interspecific mutualisms are widespread, but how they evolve is not clear," and the body of the same paper says, "Mutually beneficial interactions between members of different species play a fundamental role in all ecosystems . . . , but their evolution has challenged theoreticians for decades. " The abstract of another scientific paper says, "Cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates, has been a difficulty for evolutionary theory since Darwin." Yet another paper says, "Mutualisms are of fundamental importance in all ecosystems but their very existence poses a series of challenging evolutionary questions." And I have pointed out some of coevolution's "challenging evolutionary questions" that these papers do not even address.

There have been other examples of where I am considered a crackpot for saying the same things that the "experts" say. For example, Edwin Black, author of the book "IBM and the Holocaust," also said that Jew identification was a big problem for the Nazis. And my contention that my lawsuit against California's unconstitutional smog impact fee belonged in federal court despite states' normal immunity to federal lawsuits against state taxes was vindicated when an expert testified in state court that the fee required the approval of the US Environmental Protection Agency! I argued that California lost its immunity because the state had "left the sphere that is exclusively its own" (Parden v. Terminal Railway of the Alabama State Docks Dept.) by basing the fee entirely on the state's special status under federal auto emissions laws and regulations.

READ MORE

Brazen religious indoctrination

David Barton is one of six "experts" chosen by the Texas Board of Education to advise the board on making changes to the Social Studies TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) standards. His TEKS review submitted to the board says (pages 11-12),

(quoting first 126 words of the Declaration of Independence)When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

(It is from this section that students are to recite by memory under state law.)
The principles set forth here and subsequently secured in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights include:

1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature

2. There is a Creator

3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights

4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual

5. Below God-given rights and moral law, government is directed by the consent of the government

Students must also understand the Framers' very explicit (and very frequent) definition of inalienable rights as being those rights given by God to every individual, independent of any government anywhere . . . . These fundamental five precepts of American government must be thoroughly understood by students, but they are not currently addressed in the TEKS.

Telling students that god is the source of their human rights is brazen religious indoctrination, especially when at the same time ignoring other sources and bases of those rights. For example, it can be argued purely on the basis of logic -- without any reference to a god at all -- that there is no good reason to deny someone a right when exercise of that right would not infringe upon the rights of others. Indeed, determining whether or not the rights of others are infringed upon provides a basis for determining what should be a right and what should not, whereas deciding what rights should be considered god-given is arbitrary. Also, I said in a previous post,
.

Marshall [another fundy crackpot chosen as one of the 6 experts] and Barton are just plain wrong -- there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it is based on religion, nor is there anything in the Constitution that links that document to the Declaration of Independence, which does have religious references. One would think that if the Founders wanted people to think that the Constitution is based on the bible, the Constitution would say that it is based on the bible. . . . . . . . . .Marshall and Barton are putting words in the mouths of the Founders, viewing the Constitution as a document inspired by and based on religion when the Constitution itself does not have anything that supports that view. Furthermore, IMO the principles of liberty and democracy should be regarded as universal and not particularly based on the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, regardless of whether or not those documents are derived from religious beliefs. It is a myth that the Declaration of Independence originated the ideas of liberty and democracy. I assert that the American Revolution's purpose was not to establish a new form of government -- the governments that the colonies had after independence were not that much different from the governments they had before independence, the only real difference being that the colonies were independent of Britain. The American Revolution was primarily just the result of the harsh so-named "Intolerable Acts," which Britain enacted in response to the Boston Tea Party.

BTW, here is Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney's interpretation of those first 126 words of the Constitution, from the Dred Scott decision:

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

So one of the things that the Declaration of Independence has done hss been to expose the hypocrisy of people like Justice Taney -- and some of the Founders themselves.

As for the statement, "It is from this section that students are to recite by memory under state law," I could find no such requirement in the current 5th-grade Texas social studies TEKS, and I see no reason why there should be such a requirement.

Barton's TEKS review says (page 12-13),

The Dual Documents of American Government. The TEKS should stipulate (but currently do not) that the Declaration of Independence is symbiotic with the Constitution rather than a separate unrelated document . . . . Only in recent years have the Declaration and the Constitution wrongly been viewed as independent rather than inseparable and interdependent documents.

Obviously, Barton's main reason for trying to link the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence is that the latter document refers to a "creator," "divine providence," etc. whereas the former document does not. He is not fooling anybody. Would our Constitution be any less valid if there had been no American Revolution and no Declaration of Independence?

Barton said (page 12),

Significantly, the Constitution directly attaches itself to the Declaration by dating itself from the year of the Declaration of Independence rather than from 1787, the year of its writing

Barton is really desperate here in his efforts to attach the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. The Constitution only mentions (in the signature section) that the constitutional convention adopted the Constitution in the twelfth year of the independence of the USA -- the Declaration of Independence itself is not even mentioned. Also, I don't know what David Barton means about the Constitution "dating itself" -- the signature section gives the date of the Constitution's adoption by the constitutional convention, Sept. 17, 1987:

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

I am surprised that Barton has not seized upon the conventional statement "year of our Lord" as evidence that the Constitution is based upon the word of god.

Also, Barton's TEK review did not say where the above dates are stated in the Constitution -- I had to find the location myself. He also did not give a reference for a quote of a Supreme Court opinion. This TEKS review is very poorly documented.

Barton said (page 12),

In fact, to this day every federal law passed by Congress as well as every presidential act is dated not to the Constitution but to the Declaration

Barton is really talking through his hat here. I have read a lot of federal laws and none are dated to either the Constitution or the Declaration. And I am aware of just one constitutional provision that is dated to the adoption of the Constitution, and that is the 20-year ban on federal interference with slave importation, the first clause of Sec. 9 of Article I:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight . . . .

Barton says (page 12),

Additionally, the admission of territories as States into the United States was typically predicated on an assurance by the state that its constitution would violate neither the Constitution nor the principles of the Declaration.

As usual, Barton provides no reference to back up this statement. It is hard to imagine something constitutional that would violate the Declaration.

One state, Utah, did have difficulty in getting admitted, and the reason was polygamy -- Utah was not admitted until its constitution banned polygamy. But polygamy does not violate the US Constitution, so here a state was denied admission because of something that did not violate the US Constitution. So the US government has expected more than just adherence to the US Constitution (and maybe the Declaration) as a condition for admission.

David Barton clearly has an ax to grind here: the indoctrination of Texas students in his religious beliefs. I am no big fan of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but here is a good AUSCS article about David Barton.

Also, Barton's TEKS review has various trivia and dogmas, e.g., "Nowhere in the TEKS is definition given to who constitutes a Founding Father, and the current definition is dramatically different from the historic definition" (page 13); "Missing in the TEKS is any identification that the government of America is a constitutional republic" (page 14); "Also, completely absent from the TEKS is any mention of the Electoral College system and its benefits -- how it allows small states to have a voice, thus preserving the bicameral nature of America's constitutional government, allowing both the people and the states to have a voice in the selection of a president" (page 21 -- this statement ignores the many criticisms of the Electoral College system). David Barton is basically saying that the way social studies is being taught now is completely wrong and that he wants social studies to be taught his way.

It is too bad that there aren't any members of the Texas board of education who support balance in evolution education without also supporting crackpots like David Barton. It doesn't have to be that way. And it is especially annoying when all supporters of balance in evolution education are lumped together with the likes of David Barton.
.

READ MORE

Religion's influence on US history: Putting words in the Founders' mouths

I define "pseudo-originalism" as putting words in the Founders' mouths; i.e., giving the Constitution and other historical documents a meaning that cannot be derived from the express words of the documents. In a previous post, I condemned the pseudo-originalism of crackpot activist Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones the III, who said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. The fundies' notion that the USA was founded as a "Christian nation" is just as bad. An ABC News article says,

The debate about whether to teach religious-based social studies in Texas public schools has dominated a broader discussion about the schools' curriculum, which is undergoing a review by state officials hoping to improve the nation's second-largest school system.

The term "religious-based social studies" falsely implies that the issue here is teaching religion in the public schools -- the real issue is teaching about the influence of religion on American history.

The ABC News article continues,
.

"Of the six experts appointed in the spring by the 15-member Texas Board of Education to review the state's K-12 curriculum, three have said they would like to see more attention paid to the religious aspects of American history.

"The foremost problem that I see is that there is not nearly enough emphasis or credit given to the biblical motivations of America's settlers and founders," Evangelical minister Peter Marshall, the president of the Massachusetts-based Peter Marshall Ministries and one of the experts on the panel, told ABCNews.com.

"Our children need to know the truth about how our country got started," Marshall said.

"You never read about how the founding fathers were nearly all Christian believers and that it is their biblical world view that shaped the way they thought and achieved what they did," he said . . . .

. . . . . .David Barton, president of the Texas-based Christian heritage advocacy group WallBuilders, is another expert on the panel who would like to see changes made to the school curriculum.

"I think there should be more of an emphasis on history in the social studies curriculum," Barton said. "If there is an emphasis on history, there will be a demonstration of religion."

In his written review of the curriculum, for example, Barton argues that in order for fifth-grade students to fully understand how the American government was formed, they must also understand that it was rooted in religion.

"Students must also understand the framers' very explicit (and very frequent) definition of inalienable rights as being those rights given by God," Barton wrote.

Barton told ABCNews.com that he believes Texas' public school curriculum should "reflect the fact that the U.S. Constitution was written with God in mind."

But Dan Quinn, communications director for the Texas Freedom Network, an organization he says is dedicated to countering the conservative religious right in the state, said that what Barton and Marshall are proposing is a direct violation of the separation of church and state.

Marshall and Barton are just plain wrong -- there is nothing in the Constitution that says that it is based on religion, nor is there anything in the Constitution that links that document to the Declaration of Independence, which does have religious references. One would think that if the Founders wanted people to think that the Constitution is based on the bible, the Constitution would say that it is based on the bible. IMO Barton's main reason for trying to link the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence is that the latter document refers to a "creator," "divine providence," etc. whereas the former document does not. Marshall and Barton are putting words in the mouths of the Founders, viewing the Constitution as a document inspired by and based on religion when the Constitution itself does not have anything that supports that view. Furthermore, IMO the principles of liberty and democracy should be regarded as universal and not particularly based on the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, regardless of whether or not those documents are derived from religious beliefs. It is a myth that the Declaration of Independence originated the ideas of liberty and democracy. I assert that the American Revolution's purpose was not to establish a new form of government -- the governments that the colonies had after independence were not that much different from the governments they had before independence, the only real difference being that the colonies were independent of Britain. The American Revolution was primarily just the result of the harsh so-named "Intolerable Acts," which Britain enacted in response to the Boston Tea Party.

Also, the notion that the USA was founded with a simon-pure "wall of separation between church and state" is almost entirely based on the views -- and often the misrepresented or exaggerated views -- of just two of the Founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Even the religious views of George Washington himself are largely ignored. Ironically, when Judge John E. Jones III said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Kitzmiller v. Dover decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the Constitution's establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions, he was standing behind the college seal, which was designed by USA Founders Benjamin Rush and John Dickinson and which contains a picture of an open bible and the Latin college motto meaning, "religion and learning, the bulwark of liberty." The hypocritical separationists condemn the "Christian nation" notion of the fundies but have not condemned and have even approved Judge Jones' "true religion" speech. Even the Supreme Court has rejected the notion of a simon-pure "wall of separation between church and state," saying in Lynch v. Donnelly,

The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.

No significant segment of our society, and no institution within it, can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. "It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation. . . ." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (1973). Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.

IMO we should certainly take the thoughts of the Founders into consideration -- indeed, some of them were very wise. But the Founders thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, the notion that our current policies should be based on the beliefs of the Founders has resulted in gross distortions of history. As a result of this notion, the Founders have been portrayed as everything from a bunch of bible-pounding, holy-rolling fundies to a bunch of godless, blasphemous atheists.
.

READ MORE