Some religions teach creationism. Science directly contradicts creationism. Is it constitutional for the government to require children to learn material that is incompatible with their religious beliefs?
Posted: November 14th 2009
Eric_PK www
First of all, asking a constitutional question of a group of atheists is like asking a medical question of a group of plumbers.
If you’re going to claim that something is unconstitutional, you’re going to need to point to the part of the constitution that you think is violated.
There are two parts that the constitution addresses. The first is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which is about establishing a national religion. That clearly doesn’t apply.
The second is:
“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Public education in no way prohibits the free exercise of religion.
So, my answer is “no”.
The real question is “what belongs in science class”, and the answer is “science”...
Posted: November 20th 2009
bitbutter www
The site www.firstamendmentcenter.org goes into more detail about how requests to be excused from school activities should be handled, when they are motivated by religious convictions.
It seems that in the U.S, compulsory science education for children of creationist parents, as a whole, isn’t unconstitutional. But requiring students to complete particular assignments may be. The constitutionality of requiring participation depends on weighing very subjective factors such as how substantially participation will “burden a student’s free exercise of religion” and whether or not the school can “prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance”.
Posted: November 17th 2009
Reed Braden www
There are a few people who, based on religious beliefs, ignore all evidence that the Earth is round. You might laugh (and, believe me, when I hear people say that the Earth is 6,000 years old and everything was blinked into existence in 6 days, I think it’s just as ludicrous and hysterical as you think belief in a flat Earth is), but they honestly believe it.
If teaching facts that went against religious belief violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States, globes would be illegal in school because of these idiots.
If your public school teacher says, “The theory of evolution is true. Here are the facts that support it,” he or she is not violating anyone’s rights. You have a right to your opinion, but you also have the obligation as a public school student to learn what the evidence shows, even if you choose to ignore that evidence.
If your public school teacher says, “The theory of evolution is true, and, because of that, there is no reason to believe in a god. Your religion is wrong,” he or she is violating your rights and I will support any action taken to reprimand or remove the teacher. However, I doubt any reasonable teacher would say that.
Teaching the facts is not wrong. Teaching you to think critically about your beliefs is not wrong. Teaching you to apply the scientific method to everything someone tells you, even at home or in church, is not wrong. Dogmatically asserting in the classroom that your religion is a lie is wrong.
However, you should understand the difference between your science teacher saying, “Your religion is wrong,” and, “Creationism is a myth.” There is evidence for evolution and abiogenesis being a better explanation for life than creationism, and so (as long as your teacher provides evidence rather than asserts the claim dogmatically), your teacher is allowed by the constitution to challenge creationism.
This is how it was explained to me by my friend who is a Constitutional scholar… or at least that’s what his pompous-looking business card calls him.
Posted: November 16th 2009
logicel
Since science does contradict creationism, then are creationists betraying their own religion, and thusly their god, when they drive a car, go to a medical doctor, eat food (much of which has been genetically modified), wear clothing, brush their teeth, on and on and on?
Creationists cherry pick their science just like they do their religion (they don’t advocate slavery or killing children and wives). Their hypocrisy is astounding.
The Constitution focuses on the freedom to practice religion. Teaching science does not prevent creationists from practicing their religion. Expecting a creationist to apply evolutionary knowledge in a job that requires such application is not a violation of their constitutional rights either. If they do not do the job which is required, then they are not doing the job and need to face the consequences. However, it would be unconstitutional if they were forced to do a job that went against their religious beliefs, in other words, they were not allowed to leave the job on their own volition.
It is also not unconstitutional for religious beliefs to be criticized (freedom of speech is just as important as freedom of religion).
Freedom of religion does not mean that society has to refrain from teaching facts and to put a lid on advancements because they may contradict religious beliefs. Religious believers have a right to their beliefs, but not to their own facts. That is what theocracies do. Freedom to practice religion is the opposite from what is allowed in a theocracy as only one religion is allowed. Religious believers generally do not want a theocracy, because it may not be their religion that is permitted. But the creationists are greedy, they want essentially a theocracy where their religion is dominant and calls the shots.
In addition, I don’t think that a child is in any position to know what their religious beliefs are as they are simply parroting what their parents demand them to believe.
Posted: November 14th 2009
SmartLX www
If you’re a creationist, you’re that rare type who is honest enough to admit that creationism is not supported or proven outright by science. I can see the use in saying so, if what you’re getting at has any merit.
That said, if it’s not unconstitutional to teach a comparative religion class, where students learn about religions other than their own, then it’s certainly not unconstitutional to teach science which also contradicts some personal religious beliefs.
The reason in both cases is that students are not being forced to accept the contradictory material as fact, even if it is. If a Christian student learns about the tenets of Buddhism, he or she is free to never use them again after the final exam. If a biology student doesn’t accept evolution, fine, so long as he or she still follows the curriculum and passes the assessment. There’s no institutionalised academic penalty for disagreeing with what one learns, as long as one learns it.
Speaking practically, it would be useful for a creationist to better understand evolutionary theory anyway. Inside knowledge would be of assistance when attacking it.
Posted: November 14th 2009