Well, why not? It works for the lefties when they want to fight God in the school system, after all. Why can't---or rather shouldn't--- it work the other way?

It was inevitable.  The pendulum on college campuses has swung too far to the left, and as with all the corrections that occur during a severe imbalance, the correction is severe as well.  The left has only itself to blame when they hire the likes of Ward Churchill and pass them off as mainstream.

Truth in Advertising applies to more than just deoderant.

What this is for are kids who have teachers like I had. Teachers that sprinkled every lesson with "But I suppose the Bible thumpers would say...". I had a similar teacher in Junior High whose test on evolution was at least 50% on the Scopes Monkey trial, and who asked kids to describe the falsehoods proposed by the Creationist side in that case.

That is heinous. That is purposefully combatting religious belief in a venue where it is illegal for religious belief to defend itself. Not only should such school systems be sued, but such teachers should lose their right to teach permanently.

There will be insipid cases, but feel assured the makeup of the average Florida court at this point isn't going to side with Christianity in knee-jerk fashion, that's for damn sure.

There will be insipid cases, but feel assured the makeup of the average Florida court at this point isn't going to side with Christianity in knee-jerk fashion, that's for damn sure.

The Irony is that Florida is basically a conservative state, yet it has one of the most liberal judiciary. That will change in time.

I agree with you, and that should be a good grace period for colleges to clean up their act. This is the warning shot across the bow.

Somehow, I dont see them heeding the warning tho.

College? Oh, hardly. The first teacher I was talking about taught biology to me as a sophomore in high school, the second taught me "life science" in 7th grade.

Colleges teach people who are old enough to not be ripped to peices by opposing opinions. What I saw were authority figures hacking away at the beliefs of children.

Well, why not? It works for the lefties when they want to fight God in the school system, after all. Why can't---or rather shouldn't--- it work the other way?

Because the precedent set by lawsuits that seek to remove the mention of God from schools can be used against other religions as effectively as they can against Christianity, and that's pretty much where it ends. The precedent that this particular ruling sets opens to door for lawsuits whenever a teacher says something a student doesn't like.

Colleges teach people who are old enough to not be ripped to peices by opposing opinions. What I saw were authority figures hacking away at the beliefs of children.

Which is another thing: Why would you sign up for a class with "evolution" in the title and be upset that it doesn't cover creationism? Science courses in college are titled very clearly, and anthropological or earth science curriculums have enough to cover without getting into arguments about creationism. My professor stated very clearly on the first day of class that she would be happy to discuss creationism with students during scheduled appointments, but she was not going to use class time for that purpose. There is nothing disrespect there, no disparagement, just a commitment to teach what the class advertised.

I understand that most colleges have a science general education curriculum to fulfill, and that few of those colleges offer any scientific courses that would satisfy those that believe in creationism. However, it is out of line to force professors to insert creationism into their courses. I have no doubt that there are some professors who attack creationism while teaching evolution, but legislation that forces curriculum into a school is not the way to remedy the situation.

As the opponents of this legislation pointed out, what about those that don't believe the holocaust happened? Their beliefs are being ignored. As are those that don't believe anyone landed on the moon, and those that don't believe there is a moon, and the list goes on and on.

"Their beliefs are being ignored."

That's the crux of it, in a nutshell. There is NOTHING wrong with ignoring someone's beliefs. By all means, people's beliefs shouldn't be contrasted by state sponsered education at all. I think beliefs of every kind should be ignored, and only the factual data, theories derived therefrom, and historical fact should be taught.

The teacher has no buisiness drawing spriritual conclusions from the data, for or against religion.

On the other hand what we get from most science courses that I have taken, is that when we happen upon, say, the geological age of the earth, there is a knee-jerk need to contrast that to the "fallacy" of the Biblical 6000 year old earth.

That isn't "ignoring" beliefs, that is demeaning beliefs in a venue where those beliefs are silenced by the state.

A good example taken from your metaphor would be a History teacher going point by point over why people who believe the Holocaust didn't happen are wrong, picking apart their own literature, instead of just teaching the facts of History.

There's a massive difference if you think about it. I believe if this makes any asinine wit "education major" biology teacher think twice before mentioning the Bible while he teaches biology, it will be a good thing. If Homosexuality is legally protected, and if Islam is protected from ridicule, then so should Christianity.

P.S. None of the classes I ever took, in high school or college, ever mentioned evolution in the course title, and many didn't in the syllabus. Secularist bigots have a way of working their hate into all sorts of topics instead of teaching.

A good example taken from your metaphor would be a History teacher going point by point over why people who believe the Holocaust didn't happen are wrong, picking apart their own literature, instead of just teaching the facts of History.

In a class about WWII, or specifically the holocaust, one would hope that there would be enough material relevant to the course so that the teacher would not have time to plan or inplement a point by point lecture about why the opposite belief is wrong. If this were the case, the students in class who believe in and want to learn about the holocaust would have as much to complain about as the studenst who believe the holocaust never was. Similarly, if an anthropology professor teaching evolution divulged into a step by step attack against creationism, I would be as inclined to level a complaint as anyone who felt they were being attacked. It is not a matter of whom you offend, it is a matter of what your job is and isn't. If you don't do your job, there are already measures in place to make sure you are disciplined. This is an attempt to make a religious issue out of something that isn't.

There's a massive difference if you think about it. I believe if this makes any asinine wit "education major" biology teacher think twice before mentioning the Bible while he teaches biology, it will be a good thing.

The other side of the coin is the majority of good teachers who will be muzzled by this legislation, even if they teach subjects that are not nearly as controversial. Student's that don't believe Rudyard Kipling was a racist (before having second thoughts and conflicting emotions), students who don't believe Oswald killed Kennedy, students who don't believe the moon landing was real. Wouldn't testing them on these things not only ignore their beliefs, but rub the exact opposite beliefs in their face? The problem with the legislation is that anyone can claim that anything is a belief, and anyone can claim that said belief is being disrespected.

If Homosexuality is legally protected, and if Islam is protected from ridicule, then so should Christianity.

Which laws protect homosexuality, the ones that won't allow gays to marry or the ones that won't give gays the same rights as heterosexual couples in long term relationships? And what laws protect Islam from being ridiculed? I can say as many things as I want about Islam, and so can anyone else in this country, including professors, who would be promptly disciplined after complaints from their students. This would happen if the concept being ridiculed was Christianity, Hinduis, Buddhism, or anything else. We don't need a special law for it.

"The other side of the coin is the majority of good teachers who will be muzzled by this legislation"

The only behavior this will muzzle is the demeaning of someone's beliefs. As I said before, there's no reason to ever make a values judgement about a belief if you are a teacher. There's no reason to interpret this as anything more than a denunciation of teachers who use state money as a secular pulpit.

"This would happen if the concept being ridiculed was Christianity, Hinduis, Buddhism, or anything else. We don't need a special law for it. "

On the contrary. Federal civil rights laws and hate crime legislation are constantly (ab)used to uphold the rights of the minorities I mention. The intolerable slant of the American judicial system simply ignores abuses against Christianity. This type of legislation spells out definitively that the same rules apply.

The only behavior this will muzzle is the demeaning of someone's beliefs. As I said before, there's no reason to ever make a values judgement about a belief if you are a teacher. There's no reason to interpret this as anything more than a denunciation of teachers who use state money as a secular pulpit.

Who defines what a belief is? I believe George Washington was a vampire. That belief is ignored and/or brushed aside. I claim it was demeaned. I sue.

On the contrary. Federal civil rights laws and hate crime legislation are constantly (ab)used to uphold the rights of the minorities I mention. The intolerable slant of the American judicial system simply ignores abuses against Christianity. This type of legislation spells out definitively that the same rules apply.

Whatever is used to uphold the rights of minorities, and whether or not they are used when applied to Christianity, is an issue to take up with the courts. Perhaps legislation should aim to reform that. What this legislation spells out is that a student who feels offended can sue a teacher.

"Who defines what a belief is? I believe George Washington was a vampire."

The state decides what a religious belief is. That's how we decide what religious organizations are "tax exempt", and in countless other lawsuits where people claim their rights have been bruised.

You kind of defeat your own arguement there. As you said previously we already have a lot of mechanisms to do that inplace. What this addresses is the fact the courts have steadfastly ignored Christianity in terms of this kind of educational behavior.

"I claim it was demeaned. I sue."

Then you'd have to show that the belief was referred to in class, and you'd have to tell how the teacher demeaned it. Just stating an opposing opinion doesn't demean your beliefs. If the government DID allow you to state "George Washingting Vampire" as a belief system, you'd have to show that not only was material taught that refuted it, you'd also have to point out where the teacher intentially demeaned the religion itself, i.e. teh examples I posted above.

You seem to think that just teaching evolution would be "demeaning". Hardly. When someone teaches about Naziism, they don't have to espouse it, even if they teach the reasons that the Nazis might have had to believe it. They also don't have to teach the "wrongness" of it, since the results are so glaring and obvious to anyone.

That's the key. A good teacher can simply state the facts and let the kids decide. A good teacher never has to mention the Biblical 6000 year old earth, he or she can simply do her job and teach the facts and theory of evolution. When you take the extra step and contrast a religious belief, you have REFUTED it, and don't deserve public funds.

"Whatever is used to uphold the rights of minorities, and whether or not they are used when applied to Christianity, is an issue to take up with the courts. Perhaps legislation should aim to reform that. What this legislation spells out is that a student who feels offended can sue a teacher. "

*boggle*

That is exactly what this legislation does. It spells out a person's right to sit in an educational institution without having their beliefs be the target of ridicule. That doesn't mean the teacher can't go home and write a blog about how he/she feels Christianity is silly. It simply says that if they abuse their position to combat or demean religious beliefs that they are LIABLE.

This takes the accountability for enforcement out of the hands of schools, and places it where it should be, in the courts. Schools aren't courts. The board of directors of college, or a local school board aren't lawyers, and shouldn't be the ones deciding what is or isn't a religious belief, as you say, that is a matter for the courts.

The state decides what a religious belief is

As I mentioned earlier, this is not about religious beliefs, this is about beliefs in general. This is an attempt to make a religious issue out of something that isn't, and it has obviously worked.

*boggle*That is exactly what this legislation does. It spells out a person's right to sit in an educational institution without having their beliefs be the target of ridicule. That doesn't mean the teacher can't go home and write a blog about how he/she feels Christianity is silly. It simply says that if they abuse their position to combat or demean religious beliefs that they are LIABLE.This takes the accountability for enforcement out of the hands of schools, and places it where it should be, in the courts. Schools aren't courts. The board of directors of college, or a local school board aren't lawyers, and shouldn't be the ones deciding what is or isn't a religious belief, as you say, that is a matter for the courts.

If someone demeans a minority, the minority sues, and the courts rule in the minority's favor a majority of the time. This is your argument. If someone demeans Christianity, and a Christian sues, the court's do not rule in their favor as much. This is the second part of your argument. Perhaps the courst should have legislation introduced against them since they are the ones discriminating against Christianity. Why not work on that instead of trying to take down schools?

You seem to think that just teaching evolution would be "demeaning".

I think that in a society where one can sue a restaurant for spilling coffee on oneself and win, it is exceptionally dangerous to allow for lawsuits based on something that can be as arbitrary as what is or isn't demeaning.

I just don't see why anybody would be against keeping teachers from unnecessarily mocking the beliefs of others. Unless the course was called "Anti-Christian Opinions" or something, I don't see why there'd be any necessity for anti-Christian comments by professors or teachers, and I don't see why a biology teacher can't just teach biology without adding his anti-Creationist commentary.

this is rediculous...

there are REAL people with real problems who have to file REAL lawsuits, but it is people like these who make it bad for everyone else.

I haven't read all the comments here, but I get really annoyed how JUsers can turn ANYTHING into a Left Vs Right battle. I'm clearly of the loony left, and a future teacher, but I don't intend to mock creationist beliefs. In fact I recently had a big fight with a prac teacher because she wanted me to tell the kids that an aboriginal creation story had "been made up". That is terrible, and I wouldn't say it about an aboriginal creation story or a Christian creation story. Kids should be presented the theory of evolution and told about why scientists believe it so they can make up their own minds. That's how most of education should work. Kids constructing their own meanings, like Piaget said way back when.

Btw I'm not even an evolutionist. But I do think there should be a better way of dealing with this than suing. Society is far too letigious. You do have to face that bad things happen in life and you can't run off suing someone every time this happens.