In a recent article in The Washington Post online, it was reported that Tennessee passed a bill through the House (and it's on its way to the Senate) that "would 'allow' science teachers to teach the 'strengths and weaknesses' of evolution, climate change, and other 'scientific controversies'" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/teaching-theology-in-public-schools-and-other-scientific-controversies/2011/04/04/AFQrrIdC_blog.html). Apparently, science teachers (either there in Tennessee or throughout the U.S., the article doesn't say) see this bill as a "back-door attempt, under the guise of 'academic freedom' to encourage public schools to teach Creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes."
This is just the first part of the article, I'll talk about the second part in my next post. From what I understand, the bill says nothing about teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design. It simply says that school can teach kids that evolution, like all scientific processes, is not infallible or set in stone. Actually, from what it sounds like, kids may finally get the chance to learn what I learned: to not take everything at face value, to investigate all sides of an issue. There is no one way to teach something, nor is there only one side to an issue. Schools are teaching just one side and I think it's about time the students were introduced to new ways of thinking.
Also, from what I understand, it would still be up to the individual schools/school systems to decide whether or not to alter their curriculum. The schools don't have to teach anything other than what they're already teaching. But if they want to offer an alternative or expanded solution so that the kids can open their minds, maybe generate some intelligent discussions, then that's fine.
As far as this academic freedom...I'll just say this. Public schools have the right to teach anything they want, as long as it is respectful of the country's diversity, and doesn't single out a student based on their religion. The whole idea of the separation of church and state doesn't mean that religion is excluded or forbidden in the public arena. The other half of this idea is the freedom of religion. Not the exclusion of religion. The freedom. We can't tell people how to worship. Let me rephrase that: the government can't tell the public how to worship. The nonsense about taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, or taking "In God We Trust" off our currency, it taking things too far. As far as the currency, who the hell cares?? People aren't looking at their dollar bills and saying, "Oh shoot, this money has the word 'God' on it...guess I won't be using it!" And for our pledge, if someone doesn't want to say "Under God", then that's their choice. But that's how the pledge was written and that's the way it needs to stay. And rather than telling kids they can't pray in school, offer children with religion preferences a few minutes to pray or meditate, or whatever they want to do. Telling students they can't pray is a violation of their freedom. But no one can dictate that certain religious...references, I suppose, be mandatory.
So what's my point in all this? That giving students a different side to an age-old controversy isn't pushing religion. That for once, the government has it right.
This is just the first part of the article, I'll talk about the second part in my next post. From what I understand, the bill says nothing about teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design. It simply says that school can teach kids that evolution, like all scientific processes, is not infallible or set in stone. Actually, from what it sounds like, kids may finally get the chance to learn what I learned: to not take everything at face value, to investigate all sides of an issue. There is no one way to teach something, nor is there only one side to an issue. Schools are teaching just one side and I think it's about time the students were introduced to new ways of thinking.
Also, from what I understand, it would still be up to the individual schools/school systems to decide whether or not to alter their curriculum. The schools don't have to teach anything other than what they're already teaching. But if they want to offer an alternative or expanded solution so that the kids can open their minds, maybe generate some intelligent discussions, then that's fine.
As far as this academic freedom...I'll just say this. Public schools have the right to teach anything they want, as long as it is respectful of the country's diversity, and doesn't single out a student based on their religion. The whole idea of the separation of church and state doesn't mean that religion is excluded or forbidden in the public arena. The other half of this idea is the freedom of religion. Not the exclusion of religion. The freedom. We can't tell people how to worship. Let me rephrase that: the government can't tell the public how to worship. The nonsense about taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, or taking "In God We Trust" off our currency, it taking things too far. As far as the currency, who the hell cares?? People aren't looking at their dollar bills and saying, "Oh shoot, this money has the word 'God' on it...guess I won't be using it!" And for our pledge, if someone doesn't want to say "Under God", then that's their choice. But that's how the pledge was written and that's the way it needs to stay. And rather than telling kids they can't pray in school, offer children with religion preferences a few minutes to pray or meditate, or whatever they want to do. Telling students they can't pray is a violation of their freedom. But no one can dictate that certain religious...references, I suppose, be mandatory.
So what's my point in all this? That giving students a different side to an age-old controversy isn't pushing religion. That for once, the government has it right.