Throw out the facts, lets teach myths
- Thread starter Buddha12
- Start date
Immaterial. The proper venue for this issue is the department of education, not the legislative branch. It's tantamount to a separation of powers violation.
Again, wrong venue.
That it exists. Wrong venue.
Then there is no valid cause for the legislation.
Because James, I thought my actual posts made the question absurd.
But didn't this statement, from the post I linked to for you, give you a clue?
Providing laws which protect teachers from harrassement by small town depts of education is clearly within the role of the State legislature.
You have to realise that School is a very LOCAL thing in the US and local school boards have a lot of power.
The Tennessee legislature felt this was needed but they also support the Curriculum Framework that I've posted, and to which this bill specifically applies.
As is the apparent goal, which is protecting small town boards of education from being pressured or even sued by federal and state agencies, big city know-it-alls , and local meddlers, when they hire a bunch of creationist science teachers to replace the ones who weren't teaching the weaknesses of evolutionary theory and the immorality of cloning.adoucette said:
I was referring to the Tennessee State Board of Education.
Your answer avoids my statement that the proper venue for the content of curriculum is the Tennessee State Board of Education. Legislating curriculum violates separation of powers.
Harassment of teachers by students is a school disciplinary matter. Here, the principal's office is the proper venue, with assistance of the local police.
Other forms of harassment are covered under existing criminal laws.
Thankfully we have checks and balances to mitigate the usurpation of science by creationism. Hopefully the law will be struck down, as so many of these Creationist ploys are, and I wouldn't be surprised if the plaintiffs allege separation of powers as one of the several constitutional torts giving cause of action. Fortunately, the Governor didn't sign the law, so the executive branch looks squeaky clean.
Your answer avoids my statement that the proper venue for the content of curriculum is the Tennessee State Board of Education. Legislating curriculum violates separation of powers.
Harassment of teachers by students is a school disciplinary matter. Here, the principal's office is the proper venue, with assistance of the local police.
Other forms of harassment are covered under existing criminal laws.
Thankfully we have checks and balances to mitigate the usurpation of science by creationism. Hopefully the law will be struck down, as so many of these Creationist ploys are, and I wouldn't be surprised if the plaintiffs allege separation of powers as one of the several constitutional torts giving cause of action. Fortunately, the Governor didn't sign the law, so the executive branch looks squeaky clean.
If you mean creationists in the state assembly have crafted the law to protect themselves from accountability, I would say they certainly have tried to. Still, they can run but they can't hide. The legal debate is over. The courts have determined that teaching evolution is here to stay.
The Theory of Evolution is not weak. Cloning is not immoral. Neither of these issues has anything to do with the curriculum, which prepares students for college entrance exams. The exams do not test against a standard that teaches that the theory of evolution is weak or that cloning is immoral. On the contrary, they test against the standard that evolution is a fundamental premise that binds all sciences together.
Although many teachers believe in God, about 75% overall do not believe that humans were placed on earth by God in their present form.
The law provides cover for school boards who seek the replacement of evolutionist teachers and/or the protection of creationist ones.adoucette said:
The interpretation of the Curriculum Framework by the local school boards is a fuzzy area easily exploited.
Devotion to the goal of fitting students to the preferences of liberal and amoral elitist universities should not be assumed among the school boards of Tennessee.aqueous id said:
No, the TSBofE was indeed created by the Legislature, so no, it can not be a violation of the Separation of Powers for the legislature to create laws which protect teachers.
The Bill does NOT change the CONTENT of the curriculum.
Indeed is specificially refers to the fact that the Bill only protects teachers who are teaching within the Curriculum Framework.
Maybe you missed this earlier post in this thread:
Now, according to this bill, maybe the first can't be stopped, but the LATTER certainly can. Which was the point of the entire bill because this law in no way sanctions the teaching of Creationsim
No it doesn't.
Creationism is not a Scientific Theory and is not part of the Curriculum Framework and so is not protected by this bill.
So the American educational system is enslaved by the Devil? Sounds like we need another inquisition. Oh, I forgot, we do: it just recently convened the Tennessee assembly.
Come to think of it, the Devil got his hooks into this county when He forced he Founders to inscribe in blood the following:
:mufc:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:mufc:
Good thing they came up with a version called "Intelligent Design" that was custom-tailored to avoid exactly that constraint.
Or, more to the point of the bill: they can just apply selective, extreme skepticism to teaching of evolution and get mostly the same effect as teaching creationism in a positive sense. Either way, they teach that evolution is wrong, so it's six of one, half a dozen of another.
If this is the true, defensible motive for this legislation, then you should be able to demonstrate to us where Tennessee has suffered from such a problem, and so needed such a law to fix it. Can you?
Because if not, then the agenda behind this legislation looks to be exactly what it appears to be.
Were I a creationist member of a Tennessee school board, I could use that law to cover me while I protected creationist teachers and harassed evolutionist ones.adoucette said:
The technicalities of that kind of Curriculum Framework bs provide excellent bureaucratic cover - there are loopholes in there plenty big enough to drive a school bus through, and nothing anyone can do about it.
Well then, selective (extreme) skepticism towards evolution - and harassment of teachers who don't go along with that - it is, then.
Yep. Which is part of the Wedge Strategy, the 20 year plan by the Discovery Institute to "defeat materialism, naturalism, and Darwinian evolution" and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Some interesting highlights from that document:
================================
Phase 3. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
Governing Goals
-To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
-To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
-To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
-To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
-To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
-To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
-To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities.
-To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
==================================
Nope, indeed this Bill specifically protects teachers who teach material according to the Curriculum Framework, which is very specific about Natural Selection as the basis for Evolution.
AMENDMENT #1 of the Bill clarifies that the bill would apply to scientific subjects and science courses "taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education."
http://www.tn.gov/education/ci/sci/doc/SCI_3210.pdf
http://www.tn.gov/education/ci/sci/doc/SCI_3216.pdf
You are evading the point that the Board is under the executive branch and they have been charged with this duty. It's classic separation of powers violation.
If by curriculum you mean the published one, correct. But once the first teacher schedules "creationism" into their lesson plan, your statement falls.
Purports, you mean.
Non sequitur. The proper response to a threat of dismissal is for the teacher to file a grievance, then if satisfaction is denied, to file a claim. No additional legislation is necessary. Forcing the teacher to assert creationism does not mediate the issue, it only throttles the cause of the threat.
Huh? :bugeye: