POL - Judge rules on ID case...says keep it in religion studies

[Flasch186]

I agree.

The lying is awesome!! not like GOD awesome, but awesome in it's own right.



Court rejects 'intelligent design' in class

Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 11:25 a.m. EST (16:25 GMT)


HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote.

The board's attorneys had said members were seeking to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory that evolution develops through natural selection. Intelligent-design proponents argue that the theory cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the November 8 school board election.

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

Eric Rothschild, the lead attorney for the families who challenged the policy, called the ruling "a real vindication for the parents who had the courage to stand up and say there was something wrong in their school district."

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represented the school board, did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on a technicality, and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design's scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The case is among at least a handful that have focused new attention on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether evolution disclaimer stickers placed in a school system's biology textbooks were unconstitutional. A federal judge in January ordered Cobb County school officials, in suburban Atlanta, to immediately remove the stickers, which called evolution a theory, not a fact.

In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.
Text of the school's statement

Text of the statement on "intelligent design" that Dover Area High School administrators have been reading to students at the start of biology lessons on evolution:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

[BrianD]

139-page opinion? :eek:

[Radii]

I'm sure this isn't over, but for now, *WHEW*. Thank goodness.

[Crapshoot]

cue Bubba...

[sachmo71]

They just need to provide more scientific proof for intelligent design to have it taught in a science class. That seems pretty logical to me.

[Yossarian]

Does this have a direct impact on the states that have chosen to teach ID alongside evolution or is this only likely to effect future cases?

Like the Kansas situation In November, state education officials in Kansas adopted new classroom science standards that call the theory of evolution into question.

At the time where I read that story, the implication was not just as above that they question the theory (and why not, the whole point of these things is to question them..) but to introduce ID - I don't know if it was explicitely stated, but that was the impression I got.

[CraigSca]

I think this is only for that Pennsylvania school district.

[SFL Cat]

They just need to provide more scientific proof for intelligent design to have it taught in a science class. That seems pretty logical to me.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

[Mr. Wednesday]

Does this have a direct impact on the states that have chosen to teach ID alongside evolution or is this only likely to effect future cases? Non-lawyer educated opinion:
It's not as firm as precedent, but it looks to me like the next best thing: a very substantial evidentiary record showing that ID is designed to be a disguise for creationism (therefore bringing it under the umbrella of established precedent), despite the best efforts of the creationism evangelists to hide that purpose.

SFL Cat - Behe was one of the witnesses in the trial.

[Buccaneer]

Intelligent Design is not creationism, never have been. Back in the 70s and 80s, it was called Theistic Evolution and none of the fundy, creationists-type people liked it one bit because it was too scientific based. Wonders what changed?

[cartman]

Intelligent Design is not creationism, never have been. Back in the 70s and 80s, it was called Theistic Evolution and none of the fundy, creationists-type people liked it one bit because it was too scientific based. Wonders what changed?

Like many other things, it's been co-opted.

ID is the new trend. I'd never ever heard of it (and neither had most people, I'd bet) until Bush mentioned it a few months back. Kinda like Gay Marriage. Last year, it was all over the press. Many groups were saying acceptance of it would lead to the end of Western Civilization. Since then, with the exception of the Texas amendment, you haven't heard much at all about it. If it was such a danger to civilization, wouldn't you think the groups claiming that would keep it a front burner issue until it was squashed?

[QuikSand]

Intelligent Design is, at the most generous, very lighty papered-over creationism, and it's very good to see this opinion not mince words about it. I'm looking forward to reading the opinion soon, but I am hoping that it lays out the issues fairly well. I don't expect this to quell the debate much in a practical sense, but perhaps in a legal sense (as Mr. W above expressed) it's good to have a federal court make such great strides with findings of fact and clear statements, even in a non-precedential case like this (assuming there is no appeal, which seems very safe).

There's plenty of room to understand science while maintaining and developing one's own religious beliefs. The public schools ought to be about teaching the former, and the family should decide what exposures the children receive on the latter. This is as it should be.

Regrettably, this will probably be written off by the agenda-driven as an "activist" decision (by a judge appointed by Georgw W. Bush, incidentally) but it's a simple, clear, and hopefully powerful statement that right is right, there really aren't two legitimate sides to each and every story (despite what a handful of people with degrees from diploma mills might claim and what a large number of misinformed people might want to believe), and that the principles of this country demand that religious teachings be kept out of public institutions.

[KWhit]

Here, here!

[Buccaneer]

family should decide what exposures the children receive on the latter. This is as it should be.
What about family deciding what exposures their kids get in public schools?

I don't know why ID got co-opted because believing that evolution was the process of creation (as I do) is much closer to the scientific theories of chance evolutions than the notion that everything was created 6,000 years ago. Why the hostility?

[cartman]

I don't know why ID got co-opted because believing that evolution was the process of creation (as I do) is much closer to the scientific theories of chance evolutions than the notion that everything was created 6,000 years ago. Why the hostility?

It got co-opted because creationism has already been banned from the classroom. It was a trojan horse approach that this judge clearly saw through and disallowed.

[QuikSand]

What about family deciding what exposures their kids get in public schools?

I think there are a number of occasions where parents have the right to withdraw their children from certain exposures -- I know I have seen it (in public schools) with things like dissections/vivisections, certain potentially objectionable literature, and probably other things I am not recalling. So, there is, presumably, a fair way to "opt out" of things that are part of the standard curriculum in science or other endeavors.

Just because some parents are so ill-informed that they still believe the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth doesn't give them any right to insist that these teachings be presented in the public schools right alongside matters that have withstood scientific scrutiny. And they don't get to insist that their favorite comic books or scandal sheets become part of the class-assigend readings for junior's English studies.

[Bad-example]

Intelligent Design is, at the most generous, very lighty papered-over creationism, and it's very good to see this opinion not mince words about it. I'm looking forward to reading the opinion soon, but I am hoping that it lays out the issues fairly well. I don't expect this to quell the debate much in a practical sense, but perhaps in a legal sense (as Mr. W above expressed) it's good to have a federal court make such great strides with findings of fact and clear statements, even in a non-precedential case like this (assuming there is no appeal, which seems very safe).

There's plenty of room to understand science while maintaining and developing one's own religious beliefs. The public schools ought to be about teaching the former, and the family should decide what exposures the children receive on the latter. This is as it should be.

Regrettably, this will probably be written off by the agenda-driven as an "activist" decision (by a judge appointed by Georgw W. Bush, incidentally) but it's a simple, clear, and hopefully powerful statement that right is right, there really aren't two legitimate sides to each and every story (despite what a handful of people with degrees from diploma mills might claim and what a large number of misinformed people might want to believe), and that the principles of this country demand that religious teachings be kept out of public institutions.

I have been here a very long time. This could well be the best post I have ever read here.

[Buccaneer]

I have been here a very long time. This could well be the best post I have ever read here.
For argument's sake, I disagree. It stems from the first line

Intelligent Design is, at the most generous, very lighty papered-over creationism
ID (as I call theistic evolution) is not "very lighty papered-over creationism". In this court case and in the manner of this trojan horse, yes, but this does not portray of what theistic evolution really is and where it had come from before it was co-opted. I would refer to the book "The Creation Hypothesis" written in the early 90s (before all of this recent ID controversry, I gather). Contributors include Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, John Oller and John Omdahl. Most of the literature in the 70s and 80s and early 90s, when I was following, were written by accredited scientists in many fields, not theologians or evangelists or whatever. Again, theistic evolution was considered to be very much at odds with creationism. ID may mean something else nowadays but it shouldn't have changed.

If teachers are teaching that everything started by accident and the whole process have been a series of coincidences and luck, then that is portraying a certain quasi-religious belief in gaia which is no different than saying that the process has remained the same but not by accident.

[clintl]

A great day for science education in America. I was really impressed that this judge seemed to understand the scientific issues so well.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Judge Jones, appointed by Dubya, knew this predictable torrent of blather about actiist courts from the Ignorant Design crowd was coming and planned accordingly:


Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

That's as close you can get to a Judge walking over to the lawyers and bitchslapping consul.

[Buccaneer]

Ah, here's the crux of the issue

What made ID particularly suspect, Jones wrote, was the origin of the theory itself. ID came about after 1987, when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not teach "creation science," or creationism. Intelligent design, Jones said, was a cynical attempt by religious groups to sneak theology into the public schools.
We are certainly talking about something different. Theistic evolution have been around for 100 years and I was studying it in the late 70s and early 80s. This new ID trend apparently was the progeny of creationism for theistic evolution was really the progeny of Darwin. I don't know, maybe it is subtle and while I agree that religion cannot explicity be taught in schools, its absense does not mean it does not exist in science, in history, in literature and in sociology.

[Flasch186]

Ah, here's the crux of the issue


We are certainly talking about something different. Theistic evolution have been around for 100 years and I was studying it in the late 70s and early 80s. This new ID trend apparently was the progeny of creationism for theistic evolution was really the progeny of Darwin. I don't know, maybe it is subtle and while I agree that religion cannot explicity be taught in schools, its absense does not mean it does not exist in science, in history, in literature and in sociology.



glad to see you have evolved in your thinking since researching the matter :)

youre right, religion does have a place in school, public too...in religion studies.

[Buccaneer]

glad to see you have evolved in your thinking since researching the matter :)

youre right, religion does have a place in school, public too...in religion studies.
But is it really that much different? Do you actually know what I am talking about in reference to theistic evolution?

Also, I know you don't know anything about history (from all of your political posts) but what happens when you read the Declaration of Independence in history class? Or the writings of John Adams, Lincoln, et al?

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't know why ID got co-opted because believing that evolution was the process of creation (as I do) is much closer to the scientific theories of chance evolutions than the notion that everything was created 6,000 years ago. Why the hostility?
...because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that evolution was the process of creation. You can believe it, that's fine, but that belief is based off faith and not science, hence its inclusion in religious studies and not biology.

[Flasch186]

But is it really that much different? Do you actually know what I am talking about in reference to theistic evolution?

Also, I know you don't know anything about history (from all of your political posts) but what happens when you read the Declaration of Independence in history class? Or the writings of John Adams, Lincoln, et al?

wow. considering Im a history buff and right now, as I type this, the United States history, by Time is on my desk being read is unbelieveable. No, I dont know much at all about Theistic Evolution, I was simply taking you at your word when you described it as being a different thing entirely...you said it yourself. Ill check your facts next time? I agree with your second part that were all evolving...I think you took what I was saying the wrong way but I want to end this with a kick in your mouth for saying I dont know my history...Id say i know more than a layman and less than a professor....Probably like a Grad student but Ill bet my opinions arent the same as yours...interesting how that happens in humanity.

[Buccaneer]

...because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that evolution was the process of creation. You can believe it, that's fine, but that belief is based off faith and not science, hence its inclusion in religious studies and not biology.
Ah, but something has to be the process of creation since we see stuff all around us. If not evolution, what then?

[Flasch186]

i dont think anyone is saying that the Big Bang couldnt have happened or been caused by the nad of a God but it doesnt belong in that particular studies class. It belongs in Religion or philosphy.

[twothree]

If they can't teach ID in ninth-grade biology class, how will ninth graders ever learn that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ( http://www.venganza.org )

[MrBigglesworth]

Ah, but something has to be the process of creation since we see stuff all around us. If not evolution, what then?
Ignorance is not scientific evidence. You can't say, "It's gotta be something, so I choose this," and call it evolution. I think it's possible that a 'creator' initiated evolution, but there is no evidence for it, so you can't teach it as science.

[Buccaneer]

wow. considering Im a history buff and right now, as I type this, the United States history, by Time is on my desk being read is unbelieveable. No, I dont know much at all about Theistic Evolution, I was simply taking you at your word when you described it as being a different thing entirely...you said it yourself. Ill check your facts next time? I agree with your second part that were all evolving...I think you took what I was saying the wrong way but I want to end this with a kick in your mouth for saying I dont know my history...Id say i know more than a layman and less than a professor....Probably like a Grad student but Ill bet my opinions arent the same as yours...interesting how that happens in humanity.
Ok, if you take out any talk of "religion" and put it in "religious studies", how can you learn about US history and geography - its culture, its laws, or its founding principles? If you don't talk about the role of "religion" in US history and its people, then there wouldn't be much left to learn about.

I'll give you the answer, they don't leave it out. "Religion" is widely discussed in public schools in many disciplines. This includes science for one cannot learn about scientific thought and principles without knowing how we have gotten to this point. Find some of the "religious" quotes from Einstein, Newton and even Hawking. But as the latter said, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

One does not have to assume or even state the possibility of a "creator" when discussing astronomy, cosmology, biology, etc. but one cannot unequivically state the opposite. We very likely cannot know and that violates scientific principles. If we cannot know without proof, then why take any position?

[Buccaneer]

Ignorance is not scientific evidence. You can't say, "It's gotta be something, so I choose this," and call it evolution. I think it's possible that a 'creator' initiated evolution, but there is no evidence for it, so you can't teach it as science.
As I said above before reading your post, what can you teach as science in this regard then? Do you just pretend the subject doesn't exist? I agree, it is a philosophical discussion - but it (the origin of the universe and life) all is, some would have you believe it's not.

[Flasch186]

Ok, if you take out any talk of "religion" and put it in "religious studies", how can you learn about US history and geography - its culture, its laws, or its founding principles? If you don't talk about the role of "religion" in US history and its people, then there wouldn't be much left to learn about.

I'll give you the answer, they don't leave it out. "Religion" is widely discussed in public schools in many disciplines. This includes science for one cannot learn about scientific thought and principles without knowing how we have gotten to this point. Find some of the "religious" quotes from Einstein, Newton and even Hawking. But as the latter said, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

One does not have to assume or even state the possibility of a "creator" when discussing astronomy, cosmology, biology, etc. but one cannot unequivically state the opposite. We very likely cannot know and that violates scientific principles. If we cannot know without proof, then why take any position?


Its quite simple to me...you discuss relgion in history, you COULD even talk about this particular debate when you discuss current history BUT you should not go into the specific relgions, and what their beliefs are except that which causes a significant historical event, ie. Martin Luther's nailing of the edict to the church door.. The Puritans felt persecuted by the King and decided that they had to escape the motherland. when the opportunity arose they took it. ETC. But no need to talk about what Puritanism is and Purgatory and paying the preachers etc. To me it seems quite simple....if you want to learn more about a specific relgion or theory than sign up for the elective...now once the Puritans arived at Plymouth Rock they really thought that they were headed for, blah blah blah.

[Buccaneer]

The Puritans felt persecuted by the King and decided that they had to escape the motherland. when the opportunity arose they took it. ETC. But no need to talk about what Puritanism is and Purgatory and paying the preachers etc. To me it seems quite simple....if you want to learn more about a specific relgion or theory than sign up for the elective...now once the Puritans arived at Plymouth Rock they really thought that they were headed for, blah blah blah
My god, no wonder students nowadays don't know their history if you can leave out so much!

By the way, you need to re-read the chapter again on 1) who actually arrived at "Plymouth Rock", 2) why there were no "Plymouth Rock" and 3) who the Puritans actually were and when they arrived. (Hint: the Mayflower Pilgrims were Separatists)

[clintl]

The subject exists. It's just not something than science can address with the knowledge and tools currently available. You would have to be able to devise an experiment that could disprove the existence of creator.

Is that what people of faith really want to do?

I think you're better off letting science be science, and religion be religion. I seem to remember warnings in the Bible against doing what it would take to make the existence of a creator a matter for scientific inquiry.

[Flasch186]

"The settlers who came to the New World brought with them a great deal of baggage in the form of ideas and beliefs they had held dear in England. Indeed, many of them, such as the Puritans, came to America so they could live in stricter accord with those beliefs. The Pilgrims, a branch of the Puritans, arrived off the coast of Massachusetts in November 1620, determined to live sacred lives according to biblical commands, and in so doing to build a "city upon a hill" that would be a beacon to the rest of the world."

[Flasch186]

We are talking of the same people...you just used another name to describe them, exactly:

"The Pilgrims were English Separatists who founded (1620) Plymouth Colony in New England. In the first years of the 17th century, small numbers of English Puritans broke away from the Church of England because they felt that it had not completed the work of the Reformation. They committed themselves to a life based on the Bible. Most of these Separatists were farmers, poorly educated and without social or political standing. One of the Separatist congregations was led by William Brewster and the Rev. Richard Clifton in the village of Scrooby in Nottinghamshire. The Scrooby group emigrated to Amsterdam in 1608 to escape harassment and religious persecution. The next year they moved to Leiden, where, enjoying full religious freedom, they remained for almost 12 years. In 1617, discouraged by economic difficulties, the pervasive Dutch influence on their children, and their inability to secure civil autonomy, the congregation voted to emigrate to America. Through the Brewster family's friendship with Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company, the congregation secured two patents authorizing them to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. Unable to finance the costs of the emigration with their own meager resources, they negotiated a financial agreement with Thomas Weston, a prominent London iron merchant. Fewer than half of the group's members elected to leave Leiden. A small ship, the Speedwell, carried them to Southampton, England, where they were to join another group of Separatists and pick up a second ship. After some delays and disputes, the voyagers regrouped at Plymouth aboard the 180-ton Mayflower. It began its historic voyage on Sept. 16, 1620, with about 102 passengers--fewer than half of them from Leiden. After a 65-day journey, the Pilgrims sighted Cape Cod on November 19. Unable to reach the land they had contracted for, they anchored (November 21) at the site of Provincetown. Because they had no legal right to settle in the region, they drew up the Mayflower Compact, creating their own government. The settlers soon discovered Plymouth Harbor, on the western side of Cape Cod Bay and made their historic landing on December 21; the main body of settlers followed on December 26. The term Pilgrim was first used by William Bradford to describe the Leiden Separatists who were leaving Holland. The Mayflower's passengers were first described as the Pilgrim Fathers in 1799."

[Flasch186]

Wow, that felt really really good.

[Dutch]

*raises hand*

"What are Puritans?"

Sit down and shut up, Johnny. Stop it with the insolence and let me do the talking! Are you trying to get me fired?

"Sorry..."

[MrBigglesworth]

As I said above before reading your post, what can you teach as science in this regard then? Do you just pretend the subject doesn't exist? I agree, it is a philosophical discussion - but it (the origin of the universe and life) all is, some would have you believe it's not.
What can you teach as science? Biology, chemistry, physics, psychiatry, etc. Anything in which you can perform experiments and gather evidence. Religious influences of science are also fine.

[Flasch186]

So were both right, but you were the one trying to say i was wrong...I didnt say you were....if you wondered why it felt good, thats why...oh some more:

"Several years before the Mayflower arrived with the first boat-load of illegal immigrants, Puritan separatists fled England for the Netherlands, soon deciding to relocate altogether in the Americas. However, these Puritans did not so much seek freedom, as much as they sought to escape what they thought was a permissive environment, fostered by the Church of England. The migration of the Pilgrims in 1620 was the beginning of a larger migration of Europeans to the New World. The increasing interest in the New World as a source of easily exploitable wealth enabled the Pilgrims to obtain financing through the assistance of a group of investors called the London Adventurers. The agreement was that the Adventurers would put up the money, and the settlers would perform the labor, and they would divide the profits equally. Needless to say, this venture -- while historic -- was not profitable. The original decision had been to land within the domain of the Virginia charter, but as a result of bad weather, they wound up in what is today Massachusetts. The Mayflower Compact, the document that was signed by those first settlers, was not intended to imply that the settlers were agreeing upon any new or radical democratic system of government. It was actually a modified form of customary church covenant to meet a temporary crisis in an unfamiliar situation. This first European state in the New World, at Plymouth, was a theocratic dictatorship. It was a throwback to the 1200s, with a pillory and public stockade for those who gave in to temptation, and engaged in any disallowed activity. The Mayflower Compact guaranteed that the colony would remain under the iron control of the Pilgrim Fathers for the first 40 years of its existence.

After Plymouth was settled, other people started to settle in the area around Boston Harbor. A small fishing company tried to establish a foothold on Cape Ann, which was the forerunner of a much more significant colonizing movement than had as yet taken place in north America. In Europe, the social scene was restless, from religious, political and economic causes. The Puritans came to dominate New England, and they represented a movement of Christians within the Anglican Church who felt that a more thorough reformation was necessary than that provided for by the Elizabethan religious settlement. The term "puritan" originated as an epithet of contempt, as a pejorative. Some of the Puritans did not like the idea of waiting for the Church of England to see the light, and reform itself, so they struck out on their own. This was the main distinction between the Plymouth Puritans, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony Puritans: Plymouth being dominated by a Separatist Puritan sect, and Massachusetts being dominated by a Non-separatist sect. "

[Flasch186]

hey, id love to continue this eventhough its pointless now, since the judge ruled and there doesnt look like there will be an appeal, but I gotta go to bed.

1. They were Puritans and Seperatists

2. They left England due to religious persecution with a pitstop in Holland

3. They landed at plymouth harbor

4. They killed the indians

5. They avoided going down when they hit an iceberg crossing the Indian ocean on their way, but a great story came out of it involving a diamond

6. They married their cousins

7. They were actually druids from France

g'day.

[Tekneek]

What about family deciding what exposures their kids get in public schools?

If a family really wants control, they can step up and handle the responsibility themselves. Otherwise, they're settling for what they can get.

[Flasch186]

...or send them to private school.

[Surtt]

but what happens when you read the Declaration of Independence in history class? Or the writings of John Adams, Lincoln, et al?


A. God directed Joseph Smith to.....

B. Joseph Smith, beleving God directed him to, .....


Statement A is religion, statement B is history.
I don't see any problem with teaching of religious history in schools.
It is one of the dominate themes in our western culture.

The problem is teaching religious doctrine as fact.

[Flasch186]

A. God directed Joseph Smith to.....

B. Joseph Smith, beleving God directed him to, .....


Statement A is religion, statement B is history.


well put