View Single Post
Old 01-21-2013, 20:51   #87
void *
Dereference Me!
void *'s Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,289
So CD, here's a dilemma for you, and maybe you will get the point.

I have no problem with schools *not* teaching non-belief under the same principle that would have courts and government treat non-belief as being protected by the First Amendment, legally defining it to be treated as a religion.

The Discovery Institute supported the teaching of ID in schools, when that was being litigated, on the basis that it is science, not religion. They also supported the plaintiff in this lawsuit, which required that this guy be fired because of his belief in ID, and that firing be religious discrimination.

Me: "Fine, treat athiesm as a religion for legal purposes, you get the right result even though it's not actually a religion as known by a lay person - both in the case where you don't teach it in school, and in the case where attempting to prevent someone from not believing restricts their ability to believe or not believe as their conscience dictates"

The Discovery Institute: "We want ID to be treated as not a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a wins in this lawsuit here, but we want it to be treated as a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a win in that lawsuit there"

So explain to me how I am using the same logic in both places again? I don't want it one way here and one way there - I am fine with atheism being treated as religious for first amendment purposes both with regard to preventing having it taught in school, and preventing discrimination against people merely because they don't believe.

That can't be said of the Discovery Institute and ID - they want to say it's not religion when it comes to teaching it in schools, but that it *is* religion when it comes to a claim (which turned out to be false) that some guy was fired because he believed it.

It is quite simply not the same logic. It is non-contradiction vs. contradiction. Applying the logic the Discovery Institute is using, it would be perfectly acceptable for a science textbook to state 'There is no God' - and that is actually an incorrect result, any public school attempting to use such a science textbook would get sued and *lose*.
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 01-21-2013 at 21:03..
void * is offline   Reply With Quote