Don't want your kid learning about the evils of evolution? Move to Missouri!

SixNein

Quote by chemisttree

I don't believe that someone in Missouri could just opt out of classes because evolution or the age of the Earth would be taught to be in conflict with religious beliefs. I believe the student's efforts would be very temporarily redirected and they would remain in class as they are in VA.

The law specifically states that:

that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs

So they aren't just going to sit in class while the teacher makes a presentation on evolution. I just hope the law doesn't have a chilling effect on the way science is presented because of the requirements of this law. The teachers will have to find a place for those students to go, and they will have to make separate tests and homework for those students whenever any topic conflicts with a particular students beliefs (And probably more important the parents beliefs). Any subject could be impacted by this law.

In a basic nutshell, this law allows students to be completely isolated from knowledge of various topics and subjects. Obviously, I suspect science will be the most impacted.

I'm not a big fan of 'reductio ad absurdum' to make a point which I believe is exemplified by the arguments that students will simply make up religious excuses to get out of classes in Geology, History, Art, Biology.

The only thing stopping them would be their parents. I would imagine that this will be done in a teacher-parent conference and the student may or may not be present.

Reductio ad absurdum is best exemplified in our thread by the comment that this law will somehow lead to the teaching of the Loch Ness Monster proving evolution to be false or that this law will lead to Creationism being taught in Missouri public schools. I think it's likely that Creationism already can be taught in Missouri public schools but it isn't for what should be obvious reasons.

I'm sorry about the confusion here. These comments are directed towards the changes in law of Louisiana. I regret not making a separate thread because its caused some confusion in this one.

chemisttree

Quote by SixNein

So they aren't just going to sit in class while the teacher makes a presentation on evolution. I just hope the law doesn't have a chilling effect on the way science is presented because of the requirements of this law. The teachers will have to find a place for those students to go, and they will have to make separate tests and homework for those students whenever any topic conflicts with a particular students beliefs (And probably more important the parents beliefs). Any subject could be impacted by this law.

The Supreme Court has already ruled (Epperson vs. Arkansas) that the State may not require, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma," so your fears are exaggerated. This is why the Missouri law specifically allows non-participation. Nothing special needs to be done. You also interpret the meaning of, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs," to mean that a student could opt out of class... meaning not being physically present but that isn't clear by the statute. The meaning of "participate in" may eventually be determined by lawsuit but it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the student do no more than be passively present during any educational presentation; that meaning being determined by the school districts of course. The rationale for the language was explained by the Representative that introduced the legislation to be in response to a assignment that a student write a pro gay adoption letter, sign it and mail it to the Missouri legislature. That context will ultimately figure prominently in the interpretation of the meaning of this particular clause.

Dembadon

Quote by chemisttree

...

Quote by Dembadon

Do you really need to see a study that shows students who don't take science courses do poorly in science?

Strawman. OT.

...

Either I wasn't clear enough with my reasoning in previous posts, or I misunderstood what you were asking for. Since it's off-topic, I guess we'll have to leave it. Thank you for discussing this with me, though.

lisab

Quote by chemisttree

I don't believe that someone in Missouri could just opt out of classes because evolution or the age of the Earth would be taught to be in conflict with religious beliefs.

...no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs...

(From the link in the OP.)

Sounds like "opting out due to conflict" to me.

SixNein

Quote by chemisttree

The Supreme Court has already ruled (Epperson vs. Arkansas) that the State may not require, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma,"

But that says nothing about student involvement. The state law says that students may opt out. My fear is the chilling effect if a lot of students begin to opt out. Teachers may start trying to adjust their presentations to avoid the hassle. But they aren't required to change anything according to state law.

This is why the Missouri law specifically allows non-participation. Nothing special needs to be done. You also interpret the meaning of, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs," to mean that a student could opt out of class... meaning not being physically present but that isn't clear by the statute.
The meaning of "participate in" may eventually be determined by lawsuit but it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the student do no more than be passively present during any educational presentation; that meaning being determined by the school districts of course.

I concede that it could be interpreted that way; however, the ACLU has this take on it:

Providing all students a right to refrain from school assignments and presentations that violate their religious beliefs is a truly profound change in educational law. The Supreme Court has long held that “[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its ‘basic educational mission,’ even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Providing this exemption will cause untold mischief in both public and parochial schools and will adversely affect the quality of education in Missouri.

http://www.aclukswmo.org/cases/page-...mendment-2.php

Evo

The thread keeps running off topic, so it is closed.

Similar Threads for: Don't want your kid learning about the evils of evolution? Move to Missouri!
Thread	Forum	Replies
Missouri's Facebook Law? Gets It All Wrong	Social Sciences	1
Learning without being spoon fed? (mod, move please?)	Academic Guidance	9
opinion about the University of Missouri - Columbia?	Academic Guidance	1
the evils of trans fats	Biology	1
to me, Nuclear is the best of the evils	General Physics	12

Evo Mentor Blog Entries: 4	The thread keeps running off topic, so it is closed.