New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Dan From Smithville]

@Bob the Unbeliever you have been proved wrong over and over again, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to make claims with no basis whatsoever, and worst yet, no Biblical support, knowledge, nor scriptural understanding.
What sense does it make to say something, when it's not going to be considered, but just responded to with rants, and unsupported assertions? That would just be arguing.

If you are willing to consider whether you are wrong or right, I would prove that you are wrong, but you don't consider that you are wrong. You just say whatever... regardless.

@Bob the Unbeliever you have been proved wrong over and over again, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to make claims with no basis whatsoever, and worst yet, no Biblical support, knowledge, nor scriptural understanding.
What sense does it make to say something, when it's not going to be considered, but just responded to with rants, and unsupported assertions? That would just be arguing.

If you are willing to consider whether you are wrong or right, I would prove that you are wrong, but you don't consider that you are wrong. You just say whatever... regardless.

I couldn't have said it better myself except this all should be directed to you and not Bob. It certainly all applies to you from what I have seen.

 

[Ponder This]

Uh huh!

High schoolers had to recite Islamic prayer in class, make prayer rugs as homework, websites say
Our ruling

DownTrend.com’s headline read, "Students In Fla. High School Forced To Recite Islamic Prayer, Make Prayer Rugs." This makes it sound as if students were being indoctrinated into a religion, and that's not the case.

Instead, students were studying the religion of Islam as part of a world history class. According to a district investigation, pupils were assigned to make prayer rugs as an art assignment. The district recommended a different art assignment be made from now on.

As for reciting the pillars of Islam in class, only one student complained his class was made to read the shahada. The investigation cited a notable lack of evidence that anyone was forced to recite a prayer.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
​

Maybe you should research facts before posting.

However, here is an indisputable fact:

Since 1954 no atheist can ethically pledge their loyalty to the US because Christians, led in large part by the Knights of Columbus, added the words "under God" to the pledge.

Your posting confirms that there have been court cases recently surrounding religious freedoms. Thank You.

This is really funny. You cited a problem with school children being forced to recite a Muslim prayer.

The Politifact article I excerpted showed that the story was overblown. The same story was also in the (rag) Washington Times.

Florida father furious at school lesson: ‘Muhammad is the messenger of God’

Mr. Wagner also complained that the first 100 pages of the of the religious-based chapters that deal with Judaism and Christianity are missing
Why would an atheist (or as you put it - someone anti-religious) be upset that "religious-based chapters that deal with Judaism and Christianity are missing"? That makes it quite clear that the complainer, Mr. Wagner, is probably a Christian.

You really need to research before posting. Attributing nonsense to "anti-religious people" when in fact the problem stemmed from a Christian makes you sound really biased.

Again. This also confirms that there have been recent court cases where religious freedom was the subject. Thank You.

 

[Ponder This]

So now you appear to agree that grades are a form of penalty and reward, whereas just earlier you asserted that giving an F wasn't a penalty. Which is it?

The student's argument was that he was being penalized for answering science question:
"What is the age of the earth"
with religious content, "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old""

We neither give him credit for nor take credit away for his religious content.
However, he has earned no credit, because he has failed to meet the academic standards of substance and relevance. To give him credit is, therefore, a reward, but to not give him credit is not a penalty because it is not less than he should receive from meeting academic standards of substance and relevance.

In other words, he has not been penalized for his religious content. He's been penalized for failing relevant content.

 

[Ponder This]

I think this thread tells me that a whole lot of people here on RF struggle to even barely understand legal writing.

As for myself, I studied for two years to become a paralegal back in the day when I thought I might want to be one. I have taken around a dozen courses in the law. And while I am not a lawyer -- not even close to being a lawyer -- I would definitely read and interpret the statute as @Polymath257 suggests it should be read. He's pretty much nailed it, in my opinion.

Having said that, y'all should keep in mind that in the end, the law is what the courts say it is -- no more and no less. And courts have now and then been known to interpret laws in ways that are wildly different from anything a sane person would interpret them.

I just want to second this one. What a court decides may have little or nothing to do with any 'clear reading' of the statute.

@Sunstone I find this to be an interesting opinion. So I will ask you directly why do you think that @Polymath interpretation is the way it will be read, and how would you word the bill differently (based on your dozen courses in law) so as to not have Polymath's interpretation, but instead have the clearly intended interpretation?

Reminder: the sponsor of the bill Rep Timothy Ginter specifically responded to biology evolution question that the bill cannot be abused in that way and indicated the language from the bill requiring that ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance must apply.

Since it is clear from the reading and even stated by the sponsor of the bill, I would like to know what about the wording of the bill gives you the impression that Polymath's interpretation is how it will be interpreted. Is it only because sometimes the courts interpret laws in ways that are wildly different? Are you saying that any law on this would be interpreted incorrectly and therefore no laws about this should be made? But that could be said about any law and, therefore, the legislators should make no laws at all...

 

[Polymath257]

@Sunstone I find this to be an interesting opinion. So I will ask you directly why do you think that @Polymath interpretation is the way it will be read, and how would you word the bill differently (based on your dozen courses in law) so as to not have Polymath's interpretation, but instead have the clearly intended interpretation?

Reminder: the sponsor of the bill Rep Timothy Ginter specifically responded to biology evolution question that the bill cannot be abused in that way and indicated the language from the bill requiring that ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance must apply.

Since it is clear from the reading and even stated by the sponsor of the bill, I would like to know what about the wording of the bill gives you the impression that Polymath's interpretation is how it will be interpreted. Is it only because sometimes the courts interpret laws in ways that are wildly different? Are you saying that any law on this would be interpreted incorrectly and therefore no laws about this should be made? But that could be said about any law and, therefore, the legislators should make no laws at all...

I would suggest something along the lines of

"No penalty or benefit shall be given for expression of a religious viewpoint *in addition to the academic work*."

This has the benefit of distinguishing the religious viewpoint from the academic work and allows the academic work to be graded for its own merits. Now, I am not in the habit of writing laws, but this at least deals with a major flaw.

 

[Jose Fly]

The student's argument was that he was being penalized for answering science question:
"What is the age of the earth"
with religious content, "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old""

We neither give him credit for nor take credit away for his religious content.
However, he has earned no credit, because he has failed to meet the academic standards of substance and relevance. To give him credit is, therefore, a reward, but to not give him credit is not a penalty because it is not less than he should receive from meeting academic standards of substance and relevance.

In other words, he has not been penalized for his religious content. He's been penalized for failing relevant content.

First, that makes no sense. You agree that the student is being penalized for the answer he gave, but since his answer is a clear expression of his religious beliefs, he cannot be penalized for it under this bill. "He has not been penalized for his religious content" is nonsensical, given that his answer is entirely religious.

Second, by declaring his religious beliefs to be irrelevant, the school is making a clear statement about his religious beliefs. IOW, the school would be telling the student "The Word of God is irrelevant regarding the age of the earth". Do you really think that's what the Ohio Republicans had in mind when they wrote this thing?

Finally, all this does is further illustrate just how ridiculous and self-contradictory this bill is. Hopefully it'll just die in the Senate and that'll be the end of it.

 

[nPeace]

LOL....nah, no interest in a fight here, just hoping to understand.


So it's not clear what specific "truth" Jesus was talking about, correct?

What's that? Jesus taught truth and no one knows what specific truth he thought? That would be odd, don't you think?

This is the part I'm not getting. It seems like you're saying that everything that "bears the marks of a doctrine of men" is automatically not true. ("it does not stand up to the truth. Primarily because it bears the marks of a doctrine of men").

Does that mean nothing "men" say is true?

What is said, and what is taught (as Gospel), are two different things. Agreed?

As I said when you first quoted Dr. Nei....I agree with what he's saying.

Good. I will keep this in record.

On what basis does evolutionary theory fall into the category of "philosophy"?

Again? Which language would you like it in... German, French...
I'll write a document for you, so you won't ask me this another time.
You may have a wait though. I barely have little time now, before I lose connection. So as soon as things return to normal - hopefully soon - I'll post it.

Oh sure, and that's kinda the point of my inquiry. I'm basically trying to find out if you see evolutionary theory as a salvation issue, and whether a scientist who sees universal common ancestry as accurate is therefore not a "true Christian".

Anything designed by God's adversary, is a salvation issue. That's why Christians use common sense when preconceived ideas are presented as scientific dogma. They think for themselves, and question such dogma.
Is that good with you?

 

[Jose Fly]

What's that? Jesus taught truth and no one knows what specific truth he thought? That would be odd, don't you think?

Sorry 'bout that. I misunderstood what you'd said earlier.

What is said, and what is taught (as Gospel), are two different things. Agreed?

I suppose, but I don't understand how that answers the question I asked. You seemed to be saying that anything that's "the doctrines of men" isn't true. Did I read that right?

Again? Which language would you like it in... German, French...
I'll write a document for you, so you won't ask me this another time.
You may have a wait though. I barely have little time now, before I lose connection. So as soon as things return to normal - hopefully soon - I'll post it.

Okay.

Anything designed by God's adversary, is a salvation issue.

So to be clear (sorry, just wanna make sure), you're saying that acknowledgement that evolutionary common ancestry as real and valid eliminates one from salvation, correct?

That's why Christians use common sense when preconceived ideas are presented as scientific dogma. They think for themselves, and question such dogma.
Is that good with you?

Sure. From what I can tell, your view is that any Christian who is presented the idea of universal common ancestry, and then questions it, thinks for themselves about it, evaluates it, and eventually concludes that it is real and valid has done so due to the influence of Satan, and as a result of their conclusion has eliminated themselves from the category of "true Christians" and is now outside salvation.

Is that about right?

 

[nPeace]

Sorry 'bout that. I misunderstood what you'd said earlier.

Cool

I suppose, but I don't understand how that answers the question I asked. You seemed to be saying that anything that's "the doctrines of men" isn't true. Did I read that right?

Perhaps let me understand you. What do you understand to be a doctrine of men?

Okay.


So to be clear (sorry, just wanna make sure), you're saying that acknowledgement that evolutionary common ancestry as real and valid eliminates one from salvation, correct?

I did not say that, no.

Sure. From what I can tell, your view is that any Christian who is presented the idea of universal common ancestry, and then questions it, thinks for themselves about it, evaluates it, and eventually concludes that it is real and valid has done so due to the influence of Satan, and as a result of their conclusion has eliminated themselves from the category of "true Christians" and is now outside salvation.

Is that about right?

Ha ha. Typical Fly.
No. I am not saying that at all. LOL
Keep trying my friend. Keep trying.

Oh. I have thirty minutes before I am cut off... enough time for you to catch a fish.

 

[Quintessence]

Just coming in here to add some coverage from a respected Pagan news outlet. It provides much better reporting and some insight on the folks who sponsored the bill, for those who are interested.

Student "Religious Liberty" laws may impact minority faiths in the classroom | The Wild Hunt

Both this and a local article linked to - Student religious liberty act sponsor says it protects rights; critics say it's not needed - specifically clarify something that I suspected from the outset:

“Under House Bill 164, a Christian or Jewish student would not be able to say my religious texts teach me that the world is 6,000 years old, so I don't have to answer this question. They're still going to be tested in the class and they cannot ignore the class material,” said Ginter.
From - Student religious liberty act sponsor says it protects rights; critics say it's not needed
​

The Wild Hunt provides an exceptionally relevant point on this bill that I hadn't considered:

Teachers may not be familiar with all religious traditions depending on their subject expertise and the bill provides no guidance on how grading could occur given the circumstance. This could make it difficult for any teacher to adequately judge the “substance and relevance” of religious speech.
From - Student "Religious Liberty" laws may impact minority faiths in the classroom | The Wild Hunt
​

From the two articles, one of the main reasonable criticisms of the bill is that it is redundant. We already have the First Amendment to protect speech. Proponents say the additional clarification on speech related to a student's religion is important.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

by declaring his religious beliefs to be irrelevant, the school is making a clear statement about his religious beliefs. IOW, the school would be telling the student "The Word of God is irrelevant regarding the age of the earth". Do you really think that's what the Ohio Republicans had in mind when they wrote this thing?

I think it's clear that this is a stealth effort to get more religious ideas into the classroom while denying that the legislation is trying to do that. Ask them what this bill accomplishes, and its authors will tell you it changes nothing. But of course, it does. It creates the great likelihood that religious people will be suing school districts and possibly individual teachers for downgrading any answer that includes religious beliefs whatever else is true about the answer

The basic fact is that the church and its theocratic tendencies have no respect for the cherished, fundamental, founding principle of secular government, and will try any method that they can conceive of to inject religion where it is off limits, especially classrooms. How many tell us that church-state separation is a myth unsupported by the US Constitution? And what are we to say to an ideology that realizes that it has to be deceptive, and to reach children young, to sustain itself. Where would this religion be if it were honest, and didn't get to children until they were old enough to think critically?

you have been proved wrong over and over again, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to make claims with no basis whatsoever, and worst yet, no Biblical support, knowledge, nor scriptural understanding.

Two points:

First, telling somebody that you have proved something is pointless. It's up to them to tell you whether you proved something, not you. Proof is that which convinces. If you have convinced nobody of anything, you have proved nothing. Making an argument that you or others agreed with before you presented it is not proving anything. You can only prove something to those that don't already hold the position you are hoping to prove. If nobody's mind has been changed, nothing was proved. It's analogous to a comedian telling us that he was hilarious at last night's stand-up show, when nobody laughed and the audience walked out thinking he was unfunny

Second, no knowledge is necessary to read and interpret scripture. The parts that are clear are easily understood and generally agreed upon by all readers. The vague passages open for more varied interpretation have no definite meaning.. If a given reader chooses one interpretation over others, that is a subjective reading. Nobody has authority to say that the words mean this and not that. The believer will frequently attempt to disqualify the dissenting or contrary opinion of the unbeliever regarding scripture, implying that his years of pondering over the passages and reading about or discussing them with others, or being filled with Holy Spirit, gives him special insight and discernment, but none has successfully shown me where his extra time spend buried in scripture and biblical exegesis has given him any support for his opinion over mine or any other reader of scripture. They simply attempt to prevail in discussion by claiming authority, a claim I for one reject.

Actually, I have been collecting those attempts at disqualifying the opinions of unbelievers for a few years, but it's too long a list to post without concealing it in a SPOILER. Anyway, suffice it so say that all of this was ignored:

Spoiler: disqualifying unbelievers

[1] You took the scripture out of context.

[2] You don't understand literary criticism

[3] It's an allegory, not literal.

[4] It's literal, not an allegory.

[5] Scripture is only transparent to those with a child's perspective

[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars

[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit

[8] That's the mystery of it all. "God works in mysterious ways"

[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.

[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"

[11] You don't have enough faith. You have to believe to understand.

[12] You can't criticize the bible because you don't believe or understand it.

[13] Why do we think we can pretend to know God?

[14] Scripture always interprets scripture

[15] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?

[16] You are not TRULY with truth and sincerity seeking God.

[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek

[18] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture

[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.

[20] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.

[21] Stop scripture mining.

[22] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.

[23] Even Satan can quote scripture.

[24] In any other field, like medicine, engineering, technology, electronics, software, computer, unless you have qualifications and experience, you are not allowed to open you mouth.

[25] You have no reference in the knowledge of God to know our experience in Christ Jesus. The Word has to be embedded in one's heart, and that can come from God only.

[26] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?

[27] Don't fall in the trap of being a one verse wonder. You need to understand the passage and true meaning of the verse.

[28] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.

[29] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.

[30] A doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer are so used to reading their professional documentation literally, that metaphor, allegory, parables, hyperbole, and analogies are like another language unto themselves.

[31] You are not bright or educated enough to spew against Bible

[32] I would question the person who thinks that you understand even one page of any Bible. Without first learning the language how could you.

[33] Your arguments are so full of errors and misconceptions I don't even wanna touch it.

[34] You and others like you can't understand because you're not permitted to unless/until you repent and confess Christ as LORD.

[35] The power of the gospel is designed to frustrate the wisdom of the wise.

[36] It's so damn cute when atheists reach for their Bible to make their point. I love it!

[37] Your biased interpretation of the text is not the absolute interpretation that is required.

[38] It requires theological understanding. You don't have that. I do.

[39] We cannot and must not apply modern concepts to ancient cultures. It causes failure to understand.

[40] It takes humility to understand the Bible

[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.

[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.

[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[48] You're cherry picking scripture.

[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.

[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.

[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[57] You're a Biblical ignoramus.

[58] You need Jehovah’s approval to understand His word.

[59] Please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.

[60] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

[61] How can people read the Christian Bible backwards and expect to get reasonable results.

[62] “The scriptures are "the words of the wise" and you need wisdom to understand them.”

[63] “to have a proper understanding of what God desires you need to read the whole of scripture vs picking out isolated passages.”

[64] “Fixating on individual verses, especially in the Old Testament, written in an ancient pre-Christian culture, is not really a great way to read the bible.”

[65] It's quite obvious that you don't have any understanding about Spiritual discernment : "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" 1 Corinthians 2:14

[66] A deeper understanding is important.

[67] I think someone has to be spiritually cognizant, though, to receive that.

[68] From the get go, the Bible was intended to be understood by only who were spiritually ready.

[69] a non-believer can never understand the Bible as much as a believer

[70] if you would be so gentlemanly as to refrain from commenting when you don't know Bible 101 about the issue.

[71] Coming from someone who absolutely knows nothing substantial about the Bible

 

[cladking]

Just coming in here to add some coverage from a respected Pagan news outlet. It provides much better reporting and some insight on the folks who sponsored the bill, for those who are interested.

Student "Religious Liberty" laws may impact minority faiths in the classroom | The Wild Hunt

Both this and a local article linked to - Student religious liberty act sponsor says it protects rights; critics say it's not needed - specifically clarify something that I suspected from the outset:

“Under House Bill 164, a Christian or Jewish student would not be able to say my religious texts teach me that the world is 6,000 years old, so I don't have to answer this question. They're still going to be tested in the class and they cannot ignore the class material,” said Ginter.
From - Student religious liberty act sponsor says it protects rights; critics say it's not needed
​

The Wild Hunt provides an exceptionally relevant point on this bill that I hadn't considered:

Teachers may not be familiar with all religious traditions depending on their subject expertise and the bill provides no guidance on how grading could occur given the circumstance. This could make it difficult for any teacher to adequately judge the “substance and relevance” of religious speech.
From - Student "Religious Liberty" laws may impact minority faiths in the classroom | The Wild Hunt
​

From the two articles, one of the main reasonable criticisms of the bill is that it is redundant. We already have the First Amendment to protect speech. Proponents say the additional clarification on speech related to a student's religion is important.

All through school (especially college) I had to parrot back what the teacher said on tests. Even when they were wrong I had to provide whatever stupid, incomplete, or short sighted answer they wanted.

The only time I ever balked was when more than one answer were equally the least wrong.

I can't imagine why any religion should get a pass on this. Teachers are wrong individually and collectively and students are wrong individually and collectively. Give the teacher the answer he wants rather than submitting paperwork to explain one's own beliefs or perspective. Learn the material the way it's taught. You don't need to believe it merely to UNDERSTAND it.

 

[cladking]

It is illogical to allow students to band together for any reason to submit the same "incorrect" answers. It would make more sense to force teachers to have only one correct answer on the tests for each question. This could be accomplished by "unwrecking" our failed educational system that was destroyed by do-gooders in Washington DC by exactly this sort of nonsense.

Teachers tend to be poorly educated because they came from the same failed institution that is being further damaged by such a bill or law.

 

[ecco]

So, honestly you have all the credibility of a box of crayons.

WE VEHEMENTLY OBJECT TO YOUR COMMENT!

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps let me understand you. What do you understand to be a doctrine of men?

I really can't say, as it's a phrase I don't use. I figured since you used it, you could shed some light into what it refers to.

I did not say that, no.

Ha ha. Typical Fly.
No. I am not saying that at all. LOL
Keep trying my friend. Keep trying.

I'm simply asking if you believe a Christian acknowledging evolutionary common ancestry as real and valid excludes them from salvation. Is it possible for you to give a yes or no answer?

Oh. I have thirty minutes before I am cut off... enough time for you to catch a fish.

Well that's too bad. Hope it works out.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think it's clear that this is a stealth effort to get more religious ideas into the classroom while denying that the legislation is trying to do that. Ask them what this bill accomplishes, and its authors will tell you it changes nothing. But of course, it does. It creates the great likelihood that religious people will be suing school districts and possibly individual teachers for downgrading any answer that includes religious beliefs whatever else is true about the answer

Very true. I'm hoping at some point some good lawyers advise some Ohio Republicans on how this bill is a series of lawsuits waiting to happen.

The basic fact is that the church and its theocratic tendencies have no respect for the cherished, fundamental, founding principle of secular government, and will try any method that they can conceive of to inject religion where it is off limits, especially classrooms. How many tell us that church-state separation is a myth unsupported by the US Constitution? And what are we to say to an ideology that realizes that it has to be deceptive, and to reach children young, to sustain itself. Where would this religion be if it were honest, and didn't get to children until they were old enough to think critically?

As I'm sure you know, fundamentalist Christians have been trying all sorts of schemes to get the government to teach their religious beliefs to kids in public schools....they've been doing it for decades, and I doubt they're going to stop any time soon either.

The obviously cannot abide kids getting a secular education, which speaks volumes.

 

[ecco]

It would make more sense to force teachers to have only one correct answer on the tests for each question.

Excluding essays, that is the case.

In what year did the Battle of 1812 begin? The only one correct answer: 1812

Who is buried in Grant's tomb?
A. Ulysses S. Grant
B. Ulysses S. Grant's wife, Julia Grant
C. Both
D. The Unknown Soldier
E. Other

The only one correct answer: C

My understanding of the OP is that a student can answer...
C - but only their bodies are there, their souls have gone to heaven.
...and, rightfully, be credited with giving a correct answer.

If he answered...
E - because God took their bodies into heaven
... the answer would be wrong.

 

[ecco]

Oh. I have thirty minutes before I am cut off...

Did mommy say you are close to your bedtime?

 

[Shad]

All through school (especially college) I had to parrot back what the teacher said on tests. Even when they were wrong I had to provide whatever stupid, incomplete, or short sighted answer they wanted.

On the flip side I have had to use disclaimers lest the religious become upset that science contradicts their beliefs.

I can't imagine why any religion should get a pass on this. Teachers are wrong individually and collectively and students are wrong individually and collectively. Give the teacher the answer he wants rather than submitting paperwork to explain one's own beliefs or perspective. Learn the material the way it's taught. You don't need to believe it merely to UNDERSTAND it.

This is the problem with rote learning in general.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

Carl Sagan just died again.