Which One Rules, Majority or Minority?

[John McClane]

Just a few minutes ago I came across an article on my ISP's homepage. It was shocking to see how bad America has gotten. This, and several other stories I'm providing, shows just exactly who rules in America. The Minority...
Judge Orders Removal of 'Unconstitutional' Evolution Stickers From Books in Ga. School District

ATLANTA -- A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

"By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."

Doug Goodwin, a spokesman for Cobb County schools, had no immediate comment.

The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation.

Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect.

At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism.

"Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive," school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. "This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science."

But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

The case is one of several battles waged around the country in recent years over what role evolution should play in the teaching of science.

Last year, Georgia's education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." The idea was dropped amid protests from teachers.

A school district in Dover, Pa., has been locked in a dispute over a requirement that science students be told about "intelligent design" _ the concept that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.
This next article talks about the banning of Christmas trees in Pasco County, Fla.Fury as County Bans 'Religious' Christmas Trees

Officials in a Florida county have banned Christmas trees from public buildings after the top lawyer decided they were religious symbols.

Dozens of people have complained to the Pasco County, north of Tampa, and a constitutional law group urged it to reverse its decision.

“This whole thing is silly. It floors me,” said Marijane Graham, 67, of Dade City. “I’m sure there are atheists celebrating Christmas somewhere just for the spirit of giving. I’ve never read about a Christmas tree in the Bible, or Santa for that matter.”

The last of the Christmas trees was removed on Wednesday, said Dan Johnson, assistant county administrator for public services. Trees in “semi-private” areas, such as personal offices, were allowed to remain.

Previously, the county barred religious symbols from its buildings but allowed Christmas trees. But the county attorney reconsidered that stance, and decided the trees were also religious symbols, after a man tried to display a Jewish menorah in a public building, Johnson said.

“What you allow for one (religious symbol) you must provide for all,” he said.

The American Centre for Law & Justice, a law firm founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, asked the county to reverse the decision, saying it was based on a flawed understanding of the law. The centre said Christmas trees were legally considered a secular symbol of the national holiday.

The centre’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, said it was “the most extreme example of censorship imaginable”.

Johnson said the decision would stand through the holidays, but it would be reviewed next year. Even though the above decision was reversed 24 hours later, it still shows how a minority can rule.

Also, as some might have seen on NBC a couple weeks before Christmas, the increased use of Happy Holidays, instead of Merry Christmas, was due to a small minority that stated it was against their religion and that it should be changed.

I would like it to be stated that have nothing against minority and their beliefs. I do, however, have a problem with minorities that believe they can force their beliefs onto the majority of America. This thread is not meant to cause a heated debate but, just to prove that minorities can rule.

So, once again, who rules America, majority or minority?

[Yoda]

Depends on who's right. There is a fine line between majority rule, and mob rule.

This particular instance is indefensible; macroevolution is a theory. There's absolutely no disputing that. The stickers are only being contested because some see them as the first in many steps to institutionalize religion into our schools. Whether that's so or not (and I'd say it's a shade paranoid), it's no reason to oppose the obvious and scientifically unavoidable fact that evolution as an explanation for our origin is a theory.

[John McClane]

Depends on who's right. There is a fine line between majority rule, and mob rule.

This particular instance is indefensible; macroevolution is a theory. There's absolutely no disputing that. The stickers are only being contested because some see them as the first in many steps to institutionalize religion into our schools. Whether that's so or not (and I'd say it's a shade paranoid), it's no reason to oppose the obvious and scientifically unavoidable fact that evolution as an explanation for our origin is a theory.
I totally agree. I mean look 2000 fussed because it stated it as a fact. And now six, six people I will remind you, get to decide that the stickers should be out because it's saying that evolution isn't a fact. I mean come on we have absoulte on postive idea which theory is correct. We have ideas, but on physical data to back them up.

[Sedai]

Of course, evolution has the most empirical evidence supporting it, so I tend to lean towards putting my faith in it. Of course, I am open to the presentation of other evidence supporting other theories which I will then consider carefully. I also leave the possibility open for some sort of higher force I can't grasp being responsible for evolution as well. Still, I see the attack on the stickers as just another fascist move by a sall minority of our population who claim their way of thinking is the only way of thinking.

Could be left, could be right, these people are all in their own group as far as I am concerned.

(Yods I haven't forgotten about you, just been super busy/sick.)

[Mose]

I've always viewed the world as God's big science experiment. He clapped his hands together and created the Big Bang and has been laughing at us ever since :) Besides, how do you get something from nothing? That's the argument that's always bothered me about the Big Bang theory.

As for the articles, I think in trying to be tolerant we have removed from discussion the prevailing view on many subjects, which is unfortunate. I will never understand why we have to be tolerant and allow Hanukah and Kwanza, yet Christmas is viewed as being the most offensive Holiday (derived from Holy Day BTW) existing today. To get back to your point, I think the minority can often rule b/c the majority is often divided into different factions. Look at our presidential elections... It's not uncommon for the winning candidate to have less than 50% of the vote... You could make the argument this is an example of the minority electing a candidate. Now I'm just rambling... I think I'd better stop before I get the soap box out :)

[John McClane]

Sedi, I also tend to lean more towards the evolution side. When it comes down to the creation of the Earth I believe big old God up there started the process and let science go from there. Thus, proving both theories correct. I believe that God knew that a plant this far away from the sun would be able to support life and so he decided to start the Big Bang and allow science to run its course.

[MovieMaker5087]

I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet for my benefit:

I do not believe in evolution. I think those stickers made sense and were appropriate for such students who happend to be religious. I mean, sure, people may say they have good evidence, but let us not forget the missing link as well. Afterall, let's face it-it is a theory.

And as for the Christmas tree thing, in the word's of my friend Pete (OG-):

That's retarded.

No more out of me.

[Tea Barking]

I don't belive a higher being created the universe, i like to belive in actual facts and science.
But if people choose to belive in whatever religion thats fine with me.
And in england the minorties arn't really in charge but the people in power are turning so politically correct that their starting to ban christmass trees, and happy holidays is being used more and more, saying other religions would be offended, which of course they arnt offended one bit.
It's patronizing and an offense to other religions if anything.
So we need less political correctness and more common sense and tolorance.

[Piddzilla]

The Christmas tree has not much to do with christianity. Like Santa, it's rather a symbol of the holiday itself and of course the minority was wrong in that case.

About the first article. I think the judge was 100% right. Those stickers implicitly tried to steer the students' minds in a certain direction, leading towards the traditional biblical conception of how life came to. Yes, evolution is a theory but those stickers explicitly rule out the possibility that it might also be a fact. And I think that is up to the kids to make up their own minds about that. What if I would put stickers on the Bible saying "Remember, this is only fiction!"?

Furthermore, I don't really understand your question. Breaking the law is ok if the majority of a community is for it? Sounds like some weird kind of secterism to me...

[nebbit]

I don't belive a higher being created the universe, i like to belive in actual facts and science.
But if people choose to belive in whatever religion thats fine with me.
And in england the minorties arn't really in charge but the people in power are turning so politically correct that their starting to ban christmass trees, and happy holidays is being used more and more, saying other religions would be offended, which of course they arnt offended one bit.
It's patronizing and an offense to other religions if anything.
So we need less political correctness and more common sense and tolorance.

As above. :cool:

[chicagofrog]

and as above too.

well, majority is mostly wrong, and democracy makes it rule, so...
:(
but if you mean "rule" as in "rock", then minority rules/minority rocks! :p

(i believe what i believe and politically correct majorities can sick my duck... uh i mean actually...)

[Henry The Kid]

The claim that macroevolution only being a theory is a tad off-topic, as most schools don't explore much into the topic anyway. Simply put, microevolution is a fact(or as close to what science can call a fact). Further, I don't know if I agree with it being unconstitutional, but whoever made those stickers was being really sleazy and intentionally trying to mislead kids into thinking incorrectly. Most people don't know the scientific definition of theory, so these stickers played upon their ignorance.

Further, I struggle to see either of these as the minority ruling the majority. The christmas tree was pointless(and I knew when I saw it that someone would use it to target atheists/agnostics, and I'm sure someone will use the Bush inaugural prayer thing against us as well), but singling out an act by a couple of misguided atheists/agnostics and claiming that as us ruling over you is quite silly. Let's not forget how much help faith-based charities are given by the current administration.

[John McClane]

About the first article. I think the judge was 100% right. Those stickers implicitly tried to steer the students' minds in a certain direction, leading towards the traditional biblical conception of how life came to. Yes, evolution is a theory but those stickers explicitly rule out the possibility that it might also be a fact. And I think that is up to the kids to make up their own minds about that. What if I would put stickers on the Bible saying "Remember, this is only fiction!"?
I'd have to disagree with you about that. Those stickers stated that it isn't fact and that the students should consider. This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered. That states that evolution isn't a fact, which is true. It tells students to considered all other possibilities to the origin of life and to study it carefully.The claim that macroevolution only being a theory is a tad off-topic, as most schools don't explore much into the topic anyway. Simply put, microevolution is a fact(or as close to what science can call a fact). Further, I don't know if I agree with it being unconstitutional, but whoever made those stickers was being really sleazy and intentionally trying to mislead kids into thinking incorrectly. Most people don't know the scientific definition of theory, so these stickers played upon their ignorance.
They made those stickers because 2,000 parents complained that the books stated evoultion as fact. So why is it sleazy to listen to the majority and do what they want?

[Henry The Kid]

I'd have to disagree with you about that. Those stickers stated that it isn't fact and that the students should consider. That states that evolution isn't a fact, which is true. It tells students to considered all other possibilities to the origin of life and to study it carefully. They made those stickers because 2,000 parents complained that the books stated evoultion as fact. So why is it sleazy to listen to the majority and do what they want?

Microevolution is a fact.

[John McClane]

Microevolution is a fact.
Do we have enough evidence to back that up 100%? Can you tell me the name of the scientist that was around to document the evolution of man?

[Henry The Kid]

Do we have enough evidence to back that up 100%? Can you tell me the name of the scientist that was around to document the evolution of man?

Actually, you are showing a lack of understanding about the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Quick lesson:

The strict definition of evolution is

A change in allele frequencies over time

That this happens is an indisputable fact. We have observed it, directly and indirectly.

The mechanisms behind evolution, what Yoda was referring to earlier, are theory. he's completely valid in thinking that mecorevolution can be considered in the typical definition of theory, because it is what most would consider a theory.

The purpose of these stickers is to intentionally mislead, and they do so admirably. I would not go so far as to call it unconstitutional as sleazy. Then again, that is up for debate. Evolution is not, in a sense.

[Henry The Kid]

It should also certainly be noted that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive, as some perhaps have implied. Some of the best evolutionary scientists are also devout religious folk.

[John McClane]

Actually, you are showing a lack of understanding about the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Quick lesson:

The strict definition of evolution is

A change in allele frequencies over time

That this happens is an indisputable fact. We have observed it, directly and indirectly.

The mechanisms behind evolution, what Yoda was referring to earlier, are theory. he's completely valid in thinking that mecorevolution can be considered in the typical definition of theory, because it is what most would consider a theory.

The purpose of these stickers is to intentionally mislead, and they do so admirably. I would not go so far as to call it unconstitutional as sleazy. Then again, that is up for debate. Evolution is not, in a sense.
Yes, what you say is right, however, we can't be sure about the origin of life. Do we know if we came from single celled organisms or God's oh hand? That's what I'm disputing.

[Henry The Kid]

Yes, what you say is right, however, we can't be sure about the origin of life. Do we know if we came from single celled organisms or God's oh hand? That's what I'm disputing.

What I'm saying is that calling evolution a theory is just as misleading as calling it a fact. There are parts that are fact, parts that aren't. The stickers were misleading. As I said, I've gone back and forth on whether I actually consider it a breach of church and state or just a cheap tactic.

[John McClane]

What I'm saying is that calling evolution a theory is just as misleading as calling it a fact. There are parts that are fact, parts that aren't. The stickers were misleading. As I said, I've gone back and forth on whether I actually consider it a breach of church and state or just a cheap tactic.
I know you've gone back. I'm just stating the fact that it can't be called absolute fact any more then absolute theory.

[Henry The Kid]

I know you've gone back. I'm just stating the fact that it can't be called absolute fact any more then absolute theory.

Exactly. There would be outrage if science books said on them, "Keep in mind, evolution is pretty much a fact." And rightfully so.

[John McClane]

Exactly. There would be outrage if science books said on them, "Keep in mind, evolution is pretty much a fact." And rightfully so.
Yeah, it's just you sounded like you were disputing evolution as an absolute fact.

[Sedai]

So why is it sleazy to listen to the majority and do what they want?

Just because a lot of people think something is right, doesn't mean it is. The amount of people that believe in something has absolutely no bearing on it's credibility. The entire population thought the planet was flat at one point in time. This is an easy logic trap to fall into.

Here are some others:

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

[Piddzilla]

I'm more or less with that kid Henry on this matter so there's not much for me to add.. Those stickers were misleading. Something labelled as being "not a fact" is also automatically labelled as being "not true".

[Sedai]

Do we have enough evidence to back that up 100%? Can you tell me the name of the scientist that was around to document the evolution of man?

There is a hell of a lot more evidence backing evolution up than religion, so if we are talking empirical evidence here, you don't have much of an argument. Also, someone documenting something doesn't make it true. Hard scrutiny and the ability of a theory to stand up to it does. The big bang theory is under constant assault by scientists who are attempting to disprove it, lending it more credence than a theory that isn't scrutinized, or worse, a theory that contains clauses within it that instruct those who follow it not to question said theory.

To the person who said something can't come from nothing:

You are stepping on your own foot, and also, have clearly never read the Bible, as genesis states this is exactly what had happened, something from nothing. The big bang and genesis support each other. As for empirical evidence supporting some sort of celestial event that is described as the big bang or in the book of genesis:

(I'm lifting most of this, because the info is readily available)

-In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that that the universe was expanding outward in every direction. Interpolating backwards, one could logically surmise that the universe began at a single point. The release or creation of energy that the explosion-like big bang caused would have been so massive, it was theorized that remnants would still be found eons later. This “cosmic background radiation” was found as predicted, but it was no easy task. Originally these faint signatures were found by accident, to be precisely studied years later by sensitive satellite observations.

-When Einstein developed general relativity he found that it predicted an expanding universe, which would make it a prime supporter for what was later known as the big bang. Since the idea of a static, infinite universe was so prevalent at the time, he introduced a “cosmological constant” into the general relativity equations to cancel the effects of the expansion. This made the equations agree with the ideas of the day and is a perfect example of how naturalistic thinking and bad scientific method can be used to rationalize science to support particular conclusions. Einstein would later call the cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of his scientific career.


The above is a good example of science using it's built in error correcting mechanism (massive global scrutiny within the sci-community) to weed out fallacious ideas.

- Cosmological Red Shift: Doppler effects showing all matter in the universe flowing away from itself, indicating a central point of origin.

- Homogeneity : Data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.

Really, the scientists who are opposed to the big bang theory, are mainly opposed to it because it tends to support a theistic beginning to the universe. It supports God. I had some misinformed views about religion and science through most of my twenties, and it was due strictly to my lack of knowledge in both fields. If you lean towards religion, study the science and give yourself a fair chance at making a decision about things. If you are hard line science, read the bible, and try to read between the lines for what they are actually trying to tell you about life and the cosmos, not what they are showing you in the stories with burning bushes and parting seas etc.

Both sources of information are valuable, and I believe that we as humans cannot, and will never, know exactly what is up in the universe.

[John McClane]

Sedi, I understand where you are coming from where there's more evidence about evolution then religion. I believe we came from evolution but, there's still no 100% positivity that our origin was from evolution. That's all I'm saying. Also, I totally agree with you on the majority being wrong. If someone can prove me wrong with scientific evidence, I'm all for it.I'm more or less with that kid Henry on this matter so there's not much for me to add.. Those stickers were misleading. Something labeled as being "not a fact" is also automatically labeled as being "not true".I don't quite believe that either. I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying I don't believe that.Both sources of information are valuable, and I believe that we as humans cannot, and will never, know exactly what is up in the universe.I agree with you 100% on that. We also might never know if we are truly alone in the universe.

[Sedai]

Right on, and who is this sedi character? ;)

[John McClane]

Right on, and who is this sedi character? ;)
Oh he's just some kid down the block? He's just one of those kids that bugs you all the time. ;)

[Mose]

To the person who said something can't come from nothing:

You are stepping on your own foot, and also, have clearly never read the Bible, as genesis states this is exactly what had happened, something from nothing. The big bang and genesis support each other. As for empirical evidence supporting some sort of celestial event that is described as the big bang or in the book of genesis:
universe.

Sedai: Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. My personal belief is that the Big Bang was an act of God b/c noone BUT God can create something from nothing. My argument is that without God there was nothing to Bang in the first place.

I've never been good at explaining myself so hopefully this will help :)

[Henry The Kid]

Sedai: Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. My personal belief is that the Big Bang was an act of God b/c noone BUT God can create something from nothing.

Yes but can He create a burrito so hot that not even HE can touch it?

[Mose]

Yes but can He create a burrito so hot that not even HE can touch it?

I would have to say no, though I will admit I haven't given the issue much thought. I'm racking my brain here, but I don't remember burrito's coming up in my philosophy class? :) Besides, can the supreme being (and no, I"m not talking about the 5th Element), the creator of all, be bothered by a hot burrito? He'd simply say, "Dang, that's a hot burrito!" and make it cold :)

[Sedai]

Philosophy can not be used to either prove or disprove anything. It's very nature flies in the face of proving and disproving theories. Philosophy is for the unquantifiable.

Anyway, interesting link here.....

The Pope speaks on evolution (http://conservation.catholic.org/magisterium_is_concerned_with_qu.htm)

[Mose]

Philosophy can not be used to either prove or disprove anything. It's very nature flies in the face of proving and disproving theories. Philosophy is for the unquantifiable.

Anyway, interesting link here.....

The Pope speaks on evolution (http://conservation.catholic.org/magisterium_is_concerned_with_qu.htm)

Blah, blah, blah... I think you're beginning to enjoy contradicting me Sedai ;)

[Sedai]

I thought it was supporting what you said.... :D

[Henry The Kid]

I thought it was supporting what you said.... :D

I was not attempting to prove anything besides my own daftness.

[SpoOkY]

I think the minority does rule in these cases, but irrespective of these particular court decisions this sort of extreme political correctness can seem "Retarted" when singled out like this. While they may raise opportunity for debate Christian view of Creation vs Evolutionary View (not that simple) still most of the time majority will rule according to the democratic process of worrying the heck out of local MPs.

[John McClane]

I just went through this thread and re-read all my posts. And wow! I'm kind of impressed by myself. I didn't know I could think like that. Hope this doesn't start the debate up again. *Crosses Fingers* Hope it does want to debate more. *Crosses Fingers* :D

[sunfrog]

I don't get it. But then I only read the first post.
Who's the minority? The judge? Is the judge a minority?

[John McClane]

The minority were 6 parents who said the stickers broke the seperation of church and state.

[John McClane]

OK....Two words can describe me in this thread: holy crap. :D

[rice1245]

hmmm interesting >.>

On the original question of minorites ruling over majorities i think it is completely not true. The Contitution (that's right...it's capitalized!) is what rules. But no matter what, the majority in congress absolutely owns the minority. Bipartisanship is just a political tool to look good when you really know you're gonna get the vote anyway.

[mark f]

I didn't think anyone "truly rules", that's why it's difficult for me to believe that this is a question which can be answered based on one or just a few criteria. The world moves on... Mostly it seems that violence, ignorance, fear, complacency, habits (mostly bad) lead the world down its Merry Path. The last three really seem to hinder many people. Fear, complacency and habits all seem to go together into some endless cycle of regurgitating a mantra, even if it's unproved, and the longer I live, the more I "learn" that most things are "unproved". As a teacher, I do not have a liberal agenda, unless it's an agenda which makes me want to teach all students and people to "prove all things". If you attempt to "prove all things", and you come to the conclusion that liberals (or some other such "easily-gathered-together group) are "Satanists", good for you, but I have my doubts in your veracity. Now, the fact that anyone can substitute "Satanists" for any other catch-phrase which seems to merit an equal amount of "fear" leads me back to the beginning of my circle. Just love people and try to help them. If you cannot respect a human being because of "something", and you also somehow believe in a Higher Being who made that human the way he/she is capable of being, it seems that you have some serious problems with your Higher Being. Of course, I could very well be construed to be a Liberal, so just ignore me, although I do not recommend it. My "Higher Being" loves people, no matter how difficult that is to grasp. I just think that this "Higher Being" is far more-forgiving than most people, even if we can't see it yet. And my "Higher Being" has standards, but they are mostly measured against the difference between being human and being sub-or-super-human.