Kansas being Kansas.

[NeoLogic26]

So, this is happening. Kansas faith groups suing to block KSBoE science standards.

//http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/27/christian-groups-sue-to-stop-kansas-schools-from-adopting-science-standards/

My favorite WTF moment from the article:

The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

 #-o  :-k

[josephpalazzo]

Of course, teaching children to think for themselves is brainwashing. #-o

[Eric1958]

I don't understand how anybody could take the old testament seriously.

[hrdlr110]

I don't understand how anybody could take the old testament seriously.

Yet they must, if they are to believe what they say about "god is unchanging, he is the same yesterday, today, and always." That's how I always pull the Old Testament back into the debate anyhow.

[Solitary]

So they admit they are afraid Science is bad for superstitious religious beliefs.  :roll:    Solitary

[SGOS]

I understand that courts have set a precedent for atheism being a religion.  Is that correct?  While this suit attacks science, not actually atheism, you still can't assume that some slap happy judge in Kansas won't confuse the two.  What a carnival!

[Colanth]

I understand that courts have set a precedent for atheism being a religion.  Is that correct?

No.  A dictum (a comment made by a single justice, that has no weight in law) said that atheism has the same legal standing as a religion.  It's been misinterpreted (by Christians, I believe) to say that the court has ruled that atheism is a religion.  It's wrong on both counts - that it's a court ruling, and that the dictum said that atheism is a religion.  (In Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961, Justice Black's comment [orbiter dictum] called Secular Humanism one of the religions that doesn't teach "what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God".  That was his personal opinion, it has no weight in law.)

you still can't assume that some slap happy judge in Kansas won't confuse the two

Christians have been confused about Black's comment since 1961.  It has nothing to do with teaching science, it has nothing to do with atheism, and the current case has no legal standing - except, maybe, in Kansas.

[LikelyToBreak]

I don't know for sure, but it seems this is just another way to bilk people out of money.   :(

[Atheon]

The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

What "religious beliefs" are they talking about?

[SGOS]

The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

What "religious beliefs" are they talking about?

I had the same question when I read that sentence.  I assume it refers to the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs, "whoever they are or whatever it is they believe."  And the "religious beliefs of others" refers to anything and everything they don't agree with.

The first assumption that comes to my mind is that their religion revolves around indoctrinating the world around them with their specific beliefs, and suppressing any and all information, knowledge, or even another religious beliefs that present other perspectives.  In other words, they consider themselves discriminated against if laws exist which prevent them from shoving their religion down the throats of others, and teaching it in public schools.  To them, the concept of freedom of religion means total freedom for their sect of Christianity to suppress the freedoms of others, to take the constitution into their own hands, and coopt the government to force their beliefs on others.

"How can I be totally free if I am not allowed to suppress the freedoms of everyone else?  Until I can dictate my will on you, how can my country claim I have freedom?"

Teacher says to middle school boy, "Go to the principal's office," and the boy asks, "Why?"  "For spitting on the girl next to you and pulling her hair," and the boy says, "Well, it's a free country isn't it?"

[Colanth]

The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

What "religious beliefs" are they talking about?

They consider reality a religious belief.  Things like evolution and global warming, for instance.

[josephpalazzo]

The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

What "religious beliefs" are they talking about?

They consider reality a religious belief.  Things like evolution and global warming, for instance.

Global warming is against God's plan, hence a religion thingy... :roll:

[Colanth]

If it's against his plan, why doesn't he turn the thermostat down a bit?

[josephpalazzo]

Why should he?