Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools (4/16/21)

[jmotivator]

The purpose of the SCOTUS decisions regarding this had to do with students' rights to not have to be taught religion in public schools, their freedom of religion, not because of teachers' rights to teach religion or not, being forced to teach it (although them being forced to teach religious beliefs as science is certainly worse because that would be two different groups having their rights violated). The students are a captive audience. Creationism is not science, it is religion.

They don't have to be taught. The law doesn't mandate anything.

 

[Mycroft]

Supreme Court says otherwise.

The Separation of Church and State: Everson v. Board of Education​

I'll have to ask you to quote the part of that article that says that "may" is a mandate.

 

[ASHES]

Oh? So if a science book said something like "Many Hawaiians believe that their volcanoes are governed by the Goddess Pele, while it is determined that the Hawaiian Islands are formed by an exceptionally hot spot beneath the mantle that regularly breaks through the thin crust, forming the telltale string of volcanic islands as continental drift moves the mantle across the hot spot" you'd be angry?

Huh. You should relax.

That is not science. Why would it be taught as science in science class?

 

[poweRob]

I'll have to ask you to quote the part of that article that says that "may" is a mandate.

Ask the Supreme Court. They are the ones that made that ruling.

 

[jmotivator]

That is not science. Why would it be taught as science in science class?

That is stating two facts. It endorses one fact. Who is harmed in that statement?

Again, you folks sure are scared of free speech these days.

 

[brianpatrick]

Interesting that you leftists don't have a problem with public schools teaching critical race theory as if it were science.

I do, and I’m a leftist.

 

[jmotivator]

I'll have to ask you to quote the part of that article that says that "may" is a mandate.

The bill itself has no mandate.

 

[ASHES]

That is stating two facts. It endorses one fact. Who is harmed in that statement?

Again, you folks sure are scared of free speech these days.

It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with teaching science in science class. Teaching what some people believe their origin was might belong in history class, but Pele creating the Hawaiian islands can not be taught as an alternative to or equal to any scientific principles.

 

[roguenuke]

Does it say HOW the teacher has to address Creationism? It only allows teachers to bring it up.

It doesn't mandate the mention, it doesn't mandate a stance on Creationism, it only states that it is legal for a teacher to bring it up.

You folks sure are scared of free speech these days...

It is not constitutional for it to be brought up, taught as part of science classes in public schools, as such would be putting religious beliefs (which is what creationism is) on par with scientific theories.

 

[roguenuke]

Oh? So if a science book said something like "Many Hawaiians believe that their volcanoes are governed by the Goddess Pele, while it is determined that the Hawaiian Islands are formed by an exceptionally hot spot beneath the mantle that regularly breaks through the thin crust, forming the telltale string of volcanic islands as continental drift moves the mantle across the hot spot" you'd be angry?

Huh. You should relax.

Show me a science book used in public schools that mentions Pele.

Additionally, teaching creationism as an alternative to some actual scientific Theory is not at all the same as teaching creationism is a belief some people hold. The law states Creationism is allowed to be taught as an alternative. That could only be comparative in your example is the science book stated that another "Theory" for the creation of the islands is that the Goddess Pele directed it, which is not what you posted here.

 

[jmotivator]

It is not constitutional for it to be brought up, taught as part of science classes in public schools, as such would be putting religious beliefs (which is what creationism is) on par with scientific theories.

False. It's not constitutional for it to be mandatory, and in this case it still isn't. You folks already tried that overstep by trying to ban religion classes and religious clubs in public school and lost. It turns out the courts have no problem with free expression of religion... just you.

 

[roguenuke]

Your question was already asked in post #17. I answered it in post #25.

And you were wrong then too.

 

[calamity]

Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools

Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.

arstechnica.com

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted before but I searched & found nothing recent, so here is the news:

Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.​

ast week, the Arkansas state House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend state education law to allow teachers in public schools to teach creationism as "a theory of how the earth came to exist." As it stands, the act promotes blatantly unconstitutional behavior as made clear by a precedent set in a 1982 case involving the Arkansas Board of Education. Despite that, the bill passed 72-21, and it already has a sponsor in the state Senate.
The body of the bill is mercifully short, consisting of two sentence-long amendments to the existing Arkansas code:
Enter your email to get the Ars Technica newsletter

But those two sentences are enough to land teachers and their local school system in a world of trouble, in that the permission given runs afoul of a lot of legal precedent. In a key case that involved Arkansas itself, McLean V. Arkansas Board of Education, a group of plaintiffs banded together to challenge a state law that mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The judge in that case correctly recognized that creation science was actually religious in nature, and it therefore violated the constitution's prohibition against the establishment of state religion.
Advertisement

That ruling wasn't appealed, meaning the legal precedent only applied to Arkansas. But later in that same decade, a similar case from Louisiana made it to the Supreme Court, and it reached the same conclusion. The prohibition against creation science has applied nationally since.

​

Arkansas is really bad, one of the worst states in the Union today because very few major corporations moved there like they did Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. So, Arkansas is about as backwards as it gets in the US.

 

[roguenuke]

False. It's not constitutional for it to be mandatory, and in this case it still isn't. You folks already tried that overstep by trying to ban religion classes and religious clubs in public school and lost. It turns out the courts have no problem with free expression of religion... just you.

It's not constitutional for it to be taught as part of an academic subject such as science because the constitutional argument was about protecting the kids (the captive audience) from being indoctrinated with religious beliefs. Creationism is not an alternative scientific theory, but a religious belief. The only "evidence" of creationism is from the Bible or other religious doctrine, not experiments, testing, scientific data. If it is being taught by a science teacher, then it would be mandatory for those students to know about it.

 

[jmotivator]

It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with teaching science in science class. Teaching what some people believe their origin was might belong in history class, but Pele creating the Hawaiian islands can not be taught as an alternative to or equal to any scientific principles.

It has everything to do with free speech. You LITERALLY want to ban the free expression of religion.

 

[roguenuke]

They don't have to be taught. The law doesn't mandate anything.

If a teacher decides to teach it as science, as part of a mandatory course they are taking, how can the students refuse to know it?

 

[jmotivator]

It's not constitutional for it to be taught as part of an academic subject such as science because the constitutional argument was about protecting the kids (the captive audience) from being indoctrinated with religious beliefs. Creationism is not an alternative scientific theory, but a religious belief. The only "evidence" of creationism is from the Bible or other religious doctrine, not experiments, testing, scientific data.

It's not constitutional for the government to mandate the teaching of religion. This isn't a mandate, this is statement that teachers are free to speak their mind on the subject, and doesn't mandate a position for the teachers to take.

You folks are terrified by free speech...

 

[ASHES]

It has everything to do with free speech. You LITERALLY want to ban the free expression of religion.

The public classroom is not an appropriate place to express freedom of religion. I can not walk into a school and protest. "But muh free speech!"

 

[Mycroft]

Ask the Supreme Court. They are the ones that made that ruling.

That ruling doesn't say what you contend it says.

I'm asking you to show that it does.

 

[jmotivator]

If a teacher decides to teach it as science, as part of a mandatory course they are taking, how can the students refuse to know it?

Public schools have state curriculum, there is nothing in this bill that mandates anything.

 

[roguenuke]

It's not constitutional for the government to mandate the teaching of religion. This isn't a mandate, this is statement that teachers are free to speak their mind on the subject, and doesn't mandate a position for the teachers to take.

You folks are terrified by free speech...

The teachers are government employees who have students as their captive audience. Teachers are the ones being restricted by constitutional provisions here that protect the students in public schools, because students cannot refuse to believe these "alternate" theories that aren't actually science, scientific at all.

 

[poweRob]

That ruling doesn't say what you contend it says.

I'm asking you to show that it does.

Yes it does. You just don't want to read.

 

[roguenuke]

Public schools have state curriculum, there is nothing in this bill that mandates anything.

It allows for teachers to place it as part of their curriculum, which means students would have to know it, could be graded on it by those teachers who "choose" to teach it.

 

[jmotivator]

The public classroom is not an appropriate place to express freedom of religion. I can not walk into a school and protest. "But muh free speech!"

Like I said, you LITERALLY want to ban free expression. You are opposed to free speech. Just accept that you are on that side of the argument.

 

[roguenuke]

Like I said, you LITERALLY want to ban free expression. You are opposed to free speech. Just accept that you are on that side of the argument.

In public schools, teachers do not have a right to express their religious beliefs onto their students, to teach their religious beliefs as part of a science class.