The children of Georgia are not the private property of the people of Georgia. You might recall something called the 14th amendment: it states basically that all citizens of the various states are citizens of the United States, with all the rights that conveys.
Now, those children in Georgia are US citizens, with the right to as decent an education as children in all the other states. What that means is, the people of Georgia are not free to violate the rights of the children of Georgia by teaching them a bunch of hogwash crap like ‘evolution is only one theory among many’ or that ‘creationism is an equally valid theory’ or other such BS psuedo-religous nut crap.
Now, Georgia is perfectly free to experiment with different ways of teaching and getting kids to understand the basic mechanisms of evolution, of course; just like Georgia is free to do the same when teaching kids about gravity, physics, magnetism and so on.
But just as it would be a violation of the childrens rights to a decent education for the people of Georigia to, say, teach that the flat earth theory was equally valid to the round-earth theory, its also a violation of the childrens rights to teach them that creationism or ID or what the hell ever are theories on a par with evolution. Theyre not, and the kids would be being taught lies; the state of Georgia would be deliberately teaching US citizens things that were not true as if they ~were~ true. And that aint gonna happen. And if some of the people of Georgia dont like it, well they can stick pins in little dolls, call down the wrath of some invisible man, or do whatever the hell superstitious people do when they get pissed.
What federal intrusion? My reading is that educators and scientists in Georgia educational institutions and such “outsiders” as Jimmy Carter raised such a fuss that the matter was reconsidered by Georgians in response to the Georgians’ protests.
Now it seems that I must waste some of the valuable space of this thread to explain what I thought was obvious in my previous postings. So as not to clutter I will simply post a list of clarifications. And as a special treat I will use a spell check apparatus to correct my spelling because misspelling a word is rude and many of the readers here are pedants.
(1) When giving judgement on a matter of word substitution it is prime to percisely understand the meaning of the word and the meaning of the substitution(s). As such we found that **Darwin’s Finch **and **jayjay **didn’t agree with me on the delimitations of the word “evolution”. They owe me a donut and they proved my point, which is…
If the meaning of the word under discussion is not mutually agreed upon by the discussees, then there can not be a logical resolution of the discussion.
And there wasn’t. So then the only course of action left to the discussees is to pout and declare loudly that they are right because this is what was believed back in the neck of the woods where they came from. Which they did.
(2) Good Golly, nowhere, nowise, did I imply that the federal government was on standby to jail out-of-state meddlers into the personal affairs of the people of the State of Georgia. I just said that it was rude; and that messing in other people’s affairs when one did not know what one was talking about was indictitive of poor upbringing.
Milum, Ms. Cox’s little experiment made Georgia an instant laughingstock. And kids from Georgia would have had the disadvantage of a weaker understanding of evolution. But if you’re standing up on the state’s behalf to give its kids a lousy education for religious/political reasons, you’re entitled… I guess…
Did you say that “a weaker understanding of Evolution” will be a disadvantage to the little schoolkids of Georgia ?
What? Will a stroner understanding of Evolution make you fitter? A survivor? Great! I am a single example of an evolution extremist. I believe that evolution encompasses the totality of the Universal experiment.
Wow! I am cool.
Unless my beliefs have indoctrinated me beyond rational thought.
Most people have to go to northern schools before they can be indoctrinated beyond all rational thought.
Maybe though, I can now blame my religious/political reasons for denying the sweet little Georgia schoolkids a proper Marley education by explaining to them that Evolution has indoctrinated me beyond any chance of further rational thought.
Hold the phone. Upon what legal basis do you assert a federal “right to a decent education”? Segregation is prohibited on equal protection grounds; upon what constitutional basis do you assert this educational right?
Dewey and others are talking about the US Constitution, which defnes the limits the people have put on the federal gov’t. A simple matter of the rule of law-- we don’t allow our gov’t to act just because “something seems wrong”. We especially put restrictions on when the feds can intercede in a state matter. If you only taught evolution to white kids, and taught creationism to black kids, the feds could jump in to prevent racial discrimition. But there is little, if any, precedent for the feds to interfere with a general curiculum issue llike this.
Now, if you’re talking about the state consitution, that would be more applicable to an education issue such as the particular content of the curriculum. But even then you might be stretched to find cause to intercede in what a local school board does. You’d have to look at the particular state constitution to determine that, since they vary from state to state.
Personally, I’m not too interested in the legal arguments. I’m only saying I don’t find the argument “because it says so in the US constitution” very compelling. If that was the last word in any argument, US society could never change.
Since this is a matter of law, what type of argument would you use if not a legal one?
The constitution is what we use to determine if a law passed by the government is to be permitted. This does not mean that society can never change. It simply puts bounds on how much change is allowed. Congress can pass a law that says “income tax must be paid at a certain rate” and it can change that rate up or down. But Congress cannot pass a law that says “Red headed people are not allowed to vote”.
You seem to be implying that government should be permitted to do anything it wants as long as you personally like it. We have a strict rule in the constitution that says that the feds must stay out of state matters unless the constitution specifically gives the feds permission to interfere. If you want the feds to interfere in a state matter, you have to demonstrate that it is allowed by the consitution. So far, no judge has found that the federal gov’t has the authority to standardize the subjects taught in schools across the nation. If you are proposing to do that, you need to define the legal justification for the action. Point out which law you are trying to enforece, or which constitutional right you are trying to defend.
We are not deciding the law here, mearly discussing the issue. Of course, there is nothing wrong with discussing the legal side of it. Personally, I’m interested in the moral and social issues of with-holding the teaching of scientific theories. Its not just a point of law, and most of us aren’t lawyers. That doesn’t invalidate our opinions.
I’m not implying this, I’m just saying the constitutional argument is not the end of the debate, as a couple people have tried to say on this thread. I understand the need for a constitution, I just wouldn’t agree with every word of it (like most people, although we’d disagree about what we didn’t actually like).
I’d warrant because the intentional avoidance of the term “evolution” is intended purely as a political maneuver. Doublespeak is something many find distasteful, and using the phrase “biological changes over time” when you mean “evolution” is simply pandering to lobbyists rather than catering to the best interests of those being educated.
If “biological changes over time” really does mean “evolution”, why not simply say “evolution”? Why be overly verbose?
OK. I’ve already gone on record here as saying I think the idea of teaching psuedo-science is stupid. The confusion comes about when you mentioned the word “right”. That has a specific legal meaning. At any rate, it appears that we are in agreement on the issue at hand.
She is seriously underqualified for her office, and only got elected in the first place because her name is confusingly similar to that of Cathy Cox, our very popular (and Democratic) Secretary of State. (Would it be too cynical of me to think Republicans nominated Kathy Cox hoping to capitalize on such confusion?)
Hell, the “biological changes over time” business isn’t even the worst thing Kathy Cox is doing to our curriculum. At least she was still going to allow evolution to be taught, if only under deep cover.
Worse, she has decided that history began in 1500. No history prior to that date will be taught to Georgia’s high school students. No Caesar, no Aristotle, no Alexander, no Ramses, no Hammurabi. Not even William the Conqueror. And yet, the curriculum places an odd emphasis on the 1970’s, even encouraging teachers to show students segments of All in the Family and Chico and the Man. Cite.
Yes. If you don’t teach kids basic science, it’s a disadvantage in school. We’ve got enough of that problem already, though your parody of evolution is absolutely uproarious. :rolleyes:
John Mace has done a pretty admirable job of making my points for me. So let me just add the following:
Voodoochile was making a constitutional argument. He claimed that the 14th amendment made the citizens of the states, including schoolchildren, also citizens of the United States (which is true) and then stated that (presumably as a result of having citizen-status) that all children have a “right to a decent education.” I simply pointed out that there is no such right guaranteed in the federal constitution, and that if states wish to teach moronic pseudo-science, there is nothing in the federal constitution that would prevent them from doing so.
You can argue, and I would certainly agree, that teaching creationism is piss-poor public policy and that a state ought not embrace such a pig-ignorant approach to educating their young. But you can’t credibly claim in any meaningful sense that the constitution guarantees an intellectually sound education. Claiming that a “right” to a good education exists is nothing but rhetoric, since no such “right” exists in any meaningfully cognizable way.
I see. I was speaking more about the moral (for lack of a better word) right to education. I think this is a principle well worth defending, and much more important than a dispute between state and federal govenment. Access to education for all was possibly the most important social reform of the last 100 years.
