In the time of Galileo it was argued that the texts, ‘And the sun stood still … and hasted not to go down about a whole day’ (Joshua x. 13) and ‘He laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not move at any time’ (Psalm cv. 5) were an adequate refutation of the Copernican theory.
Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Mind 59 (1950), 443.
Monkey Girl by Edward Humes ISBN: 9780060885489, ISBN10: 0060885483 Ecco (imprint of Harper Collins) Hardcover 400 pages, $25.95
What does it mean when proponents of Intelligent Design say “teach the controversy”?
You may think you know what the controversy is about, but you’ll never get a more thorough and up-to-date analysis of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial than Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl. The 2005 trial was one of the latest episodes of the seemingly never-ending struggle for the hearts and minds of public school students. This is a fight between those who feel that Science describes nature pretty well, and those who believe that anything other than a strict literal interpretation of the Bible deserves a trip to hell and excommunication from polite society. The trial itself was a gripping account of small-town drama unfolding over the course of a year, of parents and children enduring intimidation and humiliation. Witnesses from both sides turned the courtroom into a fascinating arena of scientific evidence versus faith dressed in science’s clothing. At least three books have come out of the case (see further reading below for details), and Ed Humes’ Pulitzer Prize-winning writing style and even-handed coverage make Monkey Girl a compelling choice. Humes not only covers the case, he describes the town as the trial transforms it:
Dover sits firmly astride the front lines of America’s culture war, occupying the uneasy space between America’s religious faith and its longstanding fondness for scientific progress, between an idealized past and an uncertain future, between education and indoctrination, between the natural and the supernatural. For the next several months, the ninth floor courtroom in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building will belong to Kitzmiller et al versus Dover Area School District, an unintentionally epic lawsuit filed by a group of parents against their evolution-doubting school board. The case does indeed have much in common with the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, a public spectacle in which Clarence Darrow and the American Civil Liberties Union unsuccessfully challenged a Tennessee law banning the teaching of evolution. But unlike its illustrious predecessor (which, popular imagination and classic films notwithstanding, had exactly no impact on the law or educational practice at the time), the Dover case is positioned to define (or redefine) for decades just what children are taught about where we come from. [prologue, Monkey Girl]
The controversy has shifted a bit since the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, which first questioned the legality of teaching Darwin’s theory of Evolution in public schools. World War II and the Cold War demanded that the United States produce competent scientists. This demand seemed to effectively muzzle fundamentalists for a few decades. High School Biology classes approaching the Theory of Evolution would often involve an uneasy truce involving the words “changes over time” and neatly sidestepping the origins of life. Until reading this book, I assumed that all but the most extreme religious fundamentalists were fine with this truce. Humes’ book shows precisely how much this has changed.
While the book mostly focuses on the Dover trial, Humes also takes us to a similar trial in Kansas, the controversy involving the gift shop at the Grand Canyon, where Creationists have had some success in censoring information about the geological age of the national monument. Most importantly, Humes follows the trail of intellectual and legal deception to the pseudo-scientific think-tank called The Discovery Institute, a group of scientists who exclude any scientific evidence in conflict with Christian Scripture.
The Dover Trial is full of drama and bad debate, A Scopes Monkey Trial for the 21st century, or Inherit the Wind, Redux. Humes shows in the Dover case how Creationism in public schools, having been defeated in courts during the late 20th century under the Separation of Church and State clause of the First Amendment, evolved (pun intended) into the virtually identical Intelligent Design movement, to Dover, Pennsylvania among other places. Some of the most shocking moments of the trial feature the ironic displays of dishonesty which ultimately brought down the school board members who were trying to bring religion into the local biology classrooms. Humes covers the scope of the grand scheme of religious activists, who plan on infusing not only science classes with Christian dogma and bias, but History, Government, and other classes as well.
This very book elicits criticism from those whose definition of “Fair and Balanced” have been warped to Orwellian proportions by Fox News and today’s most hyperbolic propagandists. Humes compassionately portrays how the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs in this case, were attacked and their children mocked at school out of ignorance. The Dover case pitted one kind of Christians against another. Those who favored the separation of Church and State were attacked as “not Christian enough”, in a great example of how the separation of these two functions protects freedom of religion. Another surprising turn of events showed how the presiding judge, a Bush-supporting Republican was branded as a liberal judicial activist for defending the constitution.
While it is clear on which side Humes’ sympathies lie, the reader is necessarily confronted with the heart of the so-called controversy: regarding extreme religious views which by definition do not tolerate any opposing views, what are the limits of tolerance in society? How can a democracy defend pluralism from those whose religious beliefs clash so vehemently with the definition of reality itself by the rest of the world, both secular and religious? The Framers of the Constitution were historically not far away from centuries of religious wars in Europe which constantly threw governments into turmoil. They saw the value of the separation of church and state to both church and state. Back in those days religious persecution meant death or incarceration because of one’s beliefs, not what passes for persecution these days in the minds of some.
One gets the strong impression reading Humes’ insightful analysis, that this latest version of the old Darwin-vs.-God controversy is the product of the removal of Critical Thinking skills from the mainstream public school curriculum, and the lack of a Cold War Era push towards developments in Math & Science, supported by all but the most outspoken of Bible literalists, who constantly attempt to couch the debate as “God vs. Darwin”, when in fact, most religions don’t require people to choose between the two. In my opinion, this is a clear case of the old adage, “Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”. Young-Earth Creationists might benefit from not ignoring the history of the Catholic Church’s censorship of Copernicus and Galileo hundreds of years ago, and ask themselves why the Pope doesn’t have a big problem with Darwin’s theories today.
-Philadelphic
Further reading on the Dover Trial: (after the break…) (more…)
The United States Supreme Court is currently about to uphold an FCC policy that arbitrarily and unconstitutionally fines broadcasters heavily for certain lingual slippage.1
Why?
Because the FCC thinks every time anyone ever says the word “Fuck,” everyone hearing the word will think about sex, and thinking about sex is bad. Also, every time anyone ever says the word “Shit,” everyone hearing the word will think about excrement, and thinking about excrement is bad.
What the FUCK, FCC? Are we in kindergarten? Are we a nation run by puritans? Certain people spend a hell of a lot of time and money to keep proper sex education (that actually informs students about their own God-given bodies) out of public schools because why? Because it’s offensive? Those same people spend a lot of time and money chilling free speech because, as FCC attorney Gregory G. Garre would say, those words are “patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.” The word “Shit” is violative of the policy because it deals with excrement, according to the FCC argument. However, when asked by Justice Stevens whether, then, the word “dung” would also be violative, Garre responded that it wouldn’t… because it wouldn’t be patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.
So, here we are again, dealing with another confusing and circular argument. Goes like this:
X evokes images of Y.
We don’t like Y.
Therefore, we censor X.
Z also evokes images of Y.
But we don’t censor Z, because, as stated above, we don’t like X.
What? Didn’t get that little bait and switch? Yeah, well, I’m betting that the Supreme Court (most of Bush’s lackeys, anyway) will ignore it. The way it works is that the FCC establishes a set of standards, and then justifies that set of standards in a variety of odd ways, and when any of those justifications are challenged, the FCC comes back with the defense that the standard should stay anyway… because it’s the standard. That’s exactly what Garre was saying in Court, and more than half the Court will just nod and agree. It’s not that they really agree, it’s just that some of them probably honestly believe that children need protecting, and they think that the FCC is doing the right thing to protect those children. That’s a sad state for the Supreme Court because that’s exactly what the right-wing entities that put those conservative members of that Court in place were trying to avoid — judicial activism. In other words, they’re not interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they’re making up law, and that law (or at least fealty to the FCC “law”)2 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.
In a feeble, but honorable attempt to protect free speech, the attorney for (surprise) the Fox TV network, Carter G. Phillips, told the Court that ultimately by allowing the FCC to continue the insanely high fines imposed on the utterance of a word, the Court would be allowing the regulation of the content of speech.
(Gotta love how this article will probably trigger even more at-work automatic blocking.)
Hey, if you know of any good “Protest the FCC” websites to which I can link, please post them. Thanks! One you should be aware of is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Go check it out!
Obviously the FCC can’t write laws, since it’s an executive agency, and executive agencies are only supposed to be able to enforce law, not make it. Well, unless they’re in the Bush administration, but that’s a longer rant. Anyway, the actual law that gives the FCC the ability to be such a shit is codified as 18 U.S.C. 1464. Broadcasting obscene language, and 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D). Refer to Liibulletin in footnote 1 for a good overview of the case. [<]
Does that evoke images of my head being made of poopie? [<]
Apparently, the U.S. Justice department, always on the lookout to protect the interests of the delusional, is suing the D.C. area Metro,1 alleging religious discrimination over the Metro’s policy of barring employees from altering their uniforms to comply with their religious beliefs.2
At the focus of the lawsuit is Gloria Jones, an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian, who was allegedly denied employment as a Metro bus driver in 2005 because according to her religious beliefs, she’s not allowed to wear pants. And pants are part of the required uniform for Metro bus drivers, and that’s something Metro apparently doesn’t feel the need to change. A few months ago, I wrote about Intolerable Tolerance in Britain, citing a case where a judge didn’t allow a Muslim attorney to practice specifically because the attorney insisted on wearing a traditional Muslim face covering that made it impossible for the attorney to be understood in the courtroom. I opined that it was the right decision to make — if you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t be doing the job. I can see some potential ways around that one (give the attorney a special microphone?), but it’s practically efficient, and it shouldn’t be up to the court to pander to religious quirks.
What interests me about this Metro case is that, although I don’t think the requirement for pants (over, say, a conservative skirt) is necessary in order for a Metro bus driver to do the job (I could be wrong — for all I know, there are a dozen safety reasons for not wearing a skirt, and that, in my mind, would be case dismissed), the ramifications of a decision in favor of such religious favoritism could be burdensome to the court in the future and could open the door for some really wacky claims that the court would not humor (and thus would, in ignoring such additional claims, be making two standards — one for Christians and probably Muslims, and one for non mainstream religions and beliefs). And that would be bad.
It’s similar to the situation I’d encounter if I insisted on giving a Satanic prayer at the start of the next Congressional session. Isn’t the Church of Satan a recognized religion?
If the court decides against Metro, how would it decide a case where a Buddhist monk insisted on wearing robes and being barefooted? What if a follower of Gaia insisted that her religion forbade her from wearing clothing above the waist? When we start sampling from the fringes of religiously diverse practices, we have the opportunity to compare and contrast those oddities with the rituals and practices that we’ve accepted as “normal” in society, and we hopefully realize that the normal practices are just as odd and should not be allowed as a free pass to deviate from the law (like what’s happening in Britain) or from workplace requirements that probably exist for a reason (safety, uniformity?).
Note that Metro is not government owned or operated, so there’s no whining about free speech or religious freedom. It’s a business, and business owners have the right to require uniform uniforms. Right? I mean, heck, the Supreme Court allowed the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals, and the Scouts get federal funding! 3 Apparently wrong. The case is based on the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (so far, I haven’t seen which specific law Justice is using, but it’s likely one directly related to the Civil Rights Act, based on organizations that are at least partially federally funded, which I believe Metro is). However, I still think the Boy Scouts case creates a precedent that might be useful, depending on how far this case gets.
My take? If I were Metro, I’d say that I’m not discriminating based on religion, I’m discriminating based on FRIGGIN PANTS! Sheesh. Metro isn’t prohibiting the lady from believing in something. Metro isn’t trying to shove secularism or another religion down this lady’s throat. Metro isn’t punishing the lady (like paying her differently (if they had hired her) because of her religious preference). We, as a society governed by laws, must ensure those laws are not misused and abused. The Justice Department should have not taken up this case. It’s going to cost Metro money (which will cost thousands of regular Metro riders and taxpayers money), and it’s not going to solve any actual problems.
Imagine other federally funded occupations where skirt-wearing would be so utterly insane, that the mere thought of trying to bring a case on behalf of some religious nut would warrant a lengthy asylum stay for the Justice attorney. Astronaut sues NASA for not allowing her to wear a no-pants skirt space suit. Government-employed MRI tester insists that religion forbids removal of crucifix necklace, despite medical safety regulations and danger of decapitation. School teacher insists on having stoning parties when a child breaks a Commandment — because that’s what Abraham would do. Oh, and again, school teachers insisting on having the right to teach Creationism in school — preventing them from doing so would be religious discrimination!
One more: According to Sikhism, men’s hair4is a gift from God, not to be cut. This tenet is the most important of all the Sikh requirements. To cut hair is to offend God.5 If a Sikh joined the U.S. military, but refused to have his hair shaved (like the military does to all male recruits), would the U.S. Justice Department sue the U.S. military on behalf of the Sikh?
Where do we draw the line? I say: at the door. Specifically for government-funded organizations or any private entity that wants to draw a line. You don’t have to stop believing at the door, but you shouldn’t be able to insist on doing things your way if your way infringes upon others and is being paid for by the taxpayers.
That’d be the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, at http://www.wmata.com/ [<]
Sometimes I wish my kid would start a pro-transvestite anarchist atheist socialist anti-censorship club at his school. Just so I could watch the religious right-based school board members writhe in their plush seats as I defended my son’s right to establish such a student group in a public school presumably so unbiased that it would allow an antiabortion religious group. Unfortunately, what I really envision is them sitting there with smug looks of self-righteousness reminiscent of the Joe McCarthy witch hunts of the 40’s and 50’s. Honestly, I don’t mind if kids want to set up an antiabortion student club. More power to them. If a school board, on the other hand, insisted on having one, that might be a different story. What’s truly disturbing, though, is that a school board would probably find some sort of justification for prohibiting my son’s hypothetical student group, despite allowing a group that is self-admittedly religiously based. Perhaps the school boards across the nation have an idea of what is right and wrong for their schools based not on the secular governmental positions they hold, but, instead, on their own religious idealism. I think the facts tend to speak for themselves. You decide.
The United States was created and continues to be governed by a document called the U.S. Constitution. Shortly after its adoption, amendments were added to ensure further protection from the government of the citizens of the nation. The first ten amendments are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.1
There have been a number of court cases involving to what extent this prohibition against establishment and the protection of free exercise applies in a public school setting. Most recently, an Illinois U.S. District Judge, Robert Gettleman, issued a preliminary injunction against The Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act of Illinois, citing its vagueness and probable unconstitutionality, as a result of a lawsuit brought by concerned parent Rob Sherman.2
The law states, in part:
In each public school classroom the teacher in charge shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day. This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise but shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.3
[the initial "shall" was originally "may" until recently amended]4
Judge Gettleman stated that the statute’s language would indicate to a child that the child must think about praying.5 Although the case is still early on in its likely prolonged history, especially if there are appeals made and the Illinois state Attorney General decides to get involved, it is an example of how the court system takes very seriously the First Amendment, and attempts to side, by default, with the amendment’s distinct separation of church and state.
However, some school administrative bodies have lately not been so adherent to the edicts of the Constitution. Or, at minimum, have not been consistent in application of prohibitions against school activities. For example, in early November, a teenager fought and won a fight to establish an after-school antiabortion club that is specifically and openly based on a religious agenda. The purpose of the club, as stated, is:
To educate people about the biggest holocaust that is going on right here in the United States. To come together and pray to end abortion. To be a voice for my generation and a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.6
But, as a Defense Fund attorney insisted:
There is a discomfort with religious speech in the schools, even when it’s engaged in by students, which should not be the case. Once they open up the facility to clubs, merely . . . allowing a religious club in the mix does not promote religion.7
Whether or not by allowing such a club, a school is endorsing or establishing religion, there should at least be some consistency in such decisions by the governmental organizations that closely control the curricula of public school systems. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case at all. A Florida school board has been the subject of a lawsuit by a student group, titled the “Gay-Straight Alliance” which was a result of the school board insisting that the after-school club change its name, lest it violate a Florida law requiring schools to teach abstinence and “heterosexual marriage.”8
What is happening here is that a school board is using an obviously biased, discriminatory, religious-based, and unconstitutional law to justify a decision about the name and activities of an after-school student organization. Could it genuinely be a conflict between the desire of the school board to facilitate student activities and the board’s fear of reprisal by the state for not conforming to its law? Possibly. But compare this situation with the after-school antiabortion club, and that school board’s ease of acceptance, despite the possible unconstitutionality of the establishment of such a group.
If one school board could be so lenient in favor of a religious student organization, why can’t another school board be just as accepting of an organization that is not only not religious, but potentially pro-secular? It’s quite likely that both school boards and the state governments in which they reside are biased toward pro-religious organizations, and will find a way to accept them, while rejecting those that potentially threaten their religious beliefs, at least until a concerned atheist activist parent, like Rob Sherman, brings a lawsuit against the school board, and a rational judge like Judge Gettleman challenges the status quo by actually trying to enforce protections provided by the Constitution and the First Amendment. What this nation needs is more Rob Shermans and more Judge Gettlemans.
