It seems as if our new Governor has followed his step forward for Louisiana with three steps back.
In his short time as Governor, Bobby Jindal has cut taxes, enacted new ethics standards that are the highest in the nation, raised teacher pay, and balanced the budget. He's also receiving accolades today for succumbing to public pressure and vetoing the 123% pay raise the legislature passed for themselves earlier this month. As far as these accomplishments will go in making Louisiana a better place to live, I'm afraid they will all be negated by Friday' signing of SB733.
The dubiously named Louisiana Science Education Act will allow teachers in Louisiana to supplement the State science curriculum with outside materials. Though it claims to merely encourage "critical thinking and open discussion", it becomes much less innocuous when one considers that it specifically names evolution, global warming and the origin of life as topics deserving critique.
The true intentions of the bill are easily discerned when one considers that it was introduced on behalf of the LA Family Forum, the Louisiana arm of Focus on the Family, and was backed by The Discovery Institute. This is the first bill of its type to be passed in the U.S., and will likely encourage several other states to follow suit.
It's no secret that Mr. Jindal is a staunch creationist, but he's also a very intelligent man. A former Rhodes Scholar, Jindal graduated with honors in both biology and public policy. I'm disappointed that he allowed his personal religious views to override his intellect.
Science and technology are the future. The United States is already falling far behind other nations, the last thing we need at this critical juncture is to teach religion in our science classes.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 208
They should also learn that there are many scientists that don't believe that we're having global warming...and many who say it's happening but caused by the sun. Again, the kids deserve to know that.
Louisiana has always ranked last in education, the last thing we need is to teach faith-based beliefs rather than science.
You say this man was a Rhodes scholar who one of his degrees was actually in Biology. I wonder why if his morals were so against the teachings of SCIENCE why he majored in Biology?
Shame shame shame. Math books teach Math, English teaches writing, grammar, and literature, PE teaches Physical Education, why cant Biology teach Biology, not religion. Neil deGrasse Tyson once said that creationism is for people who are not intelligent enough to understand The Big Bang and Evolution. Stupid moves like this make me think he is probably right.
Jindal's own words on the subject:
"[L]et's talk about intelligent design. I'm a biology major. That's my degree. The reality is there are a lot of things that we don't understand. There's no theory in science that could explain how, contrary to the laws of entropy, you could create order out of chaos. There's no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter. I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories. Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren't answerable by science, that aren't answered by science. Let them decide for themselves. I don't think we should be scared to do that. Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator. Let's not be afraid to teach our kids the very best science."
Blanco decided not to run for a second term. New Orleans is a democratic oasis in Louisiana (which Jindal lost), the rest of the state is solidly conservative.
Which belief based creation THEORY would you like to be taught in lieu of Evolution (which evolution in and of itself is very real and proven many times over with scientific facts and evidence...or do you still use your appendix to grind your food like a gizzard would) would you like the one where one religion says man was made from yellow mud, or the one that says that man sprang from the reeds of the waters, or well you get the idea. In a public school that is financed through public funds (taxes) the government should not be allowing a faith based and only faith based that has no evidence or facts to back it up concept on the creation of earth and evolution of man.
When I was in school we learned about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and we never were taught anything that I, as a Christian, found objectional or made me question my faith. People treat long standing, well researched, tested and tried theories as somehow being the work of Lucipher himself and act as if theses theories are just wild guesses made up by a bunch of sots at a pub. But they aren't and if you understood one iota how it works you would know better.
In history we were taught the Dark Ages were over but apparently they aren't.
But thumbs up to the Catholic Church (I am not Catholic and have often disagreed with many of their policies and procedures) for just a relatively short time ago issuing a statement that essentially said that in matters where science and the Church are in conflict, if science has tested, or otherwise found evidence or proof that supports that theory that science wins!
Maybe mclame will pick him and you can be rid of him.
Probably can stay gov and run anyway?
Claudia, you contradict yourself.
Teaching creationism in a philosophy or theology class would be appropriate but it is not a science and should not pretend to be.
Science depends on testable experiments. Science also depends on a constant challenge to the prevailing theories.
There is no absolute "proof" in anything, but the prevailing theories of science are the closest we may come to understanding the "real" physical world.
It's hard to deny global warming, evolution and the big bang theory. I guess evolution only works for some of us.
Addressing the global warming problem is unprofitable, to be sure. Those who profit from the status quo obviously would not wish to change anything.
So let's help keep the wealthy flush in the dough until the crap hits the fan. We may then live in a world where money is nothing and will have an opportunity, if we survive, to start all over again.
What the heck, it's been a nice ride.
Next!
You have my sympathy, Penny. Thanks for sharing the bad news. We need to be informed.
I hope they get a variety of religions in the classroom. I like the Hindu one with the turtles--but it's also time some of the Native American creation stories get their time in the limelight....
Sadly, not a single LA official spoke out agianst this bill.
Let the lawsuits commence. By passing the buck down to individual teachers, this law will force each and every school district to defend the individual religious beliefs of any science teacher that chooses to bring his faith into the classroom. The result will be school districts forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers instead of education.
There seem to be many statements in that snippet that would contradict both logic and science. Ironically, Jindal decribes himself as a devout Catholic, and the Catholic church has no problem with the theory of evolution. As far as I know, his parents have not convereted, and are still Hindu. Wonder how he reconciles himself with that?
We could also bring in the Greek myths, Mother Earth, Scientology...the possibilities are endless. If we really want to let the kids "decide fro themselves", let at least give them every possibility.
Precisely.
Well said, Aniko.
One grows weary of the continued assertions of this false reasoning.
Absolutely mind boggling.
Furthermore, astronomers and physicists do not completely understand the big bang. All they really know is that the universe had a finite beginning. There are speculative theories put forth which contradict each each other on the issue of singularity. I think that the students should be made aware of the observable data (that the Hubble redshift proves that the the universe is expanding) and draw their own conclusions.
Sweeeeeeet.
Hmmm....then again, I think that kinda makes me feel sick to my stomach, so I think I'll pass.
All those examples you mention are scientific theories. Religious explanations are not, and can never be.
Ina: Yes, which is quite a shame. More astounding is that the bill bassed the LA senate 94-3. That just boggles my mind.
Exactly, Sharon & Jim.
Peter: A man with his background should know better, adn I suspect he does. But he also knows how to phrase the argument in just such a way that most people who don't know better will just nod in agreement.
The expert analysis of that particular statement is:
If SB 733 were truly about teaching science, such a disclaimer would be
unnecessary. It is in the bill only because its supporters know that creationism is
a religious belief and therefore that teaching it in public schools is
unconstitutional. They are hoping that any judge who might have to rule on such
legislation will be either naïve enough not to see through this disclaimer
or biased enough to accept it at face value. Any judge who did so would be
ignoring both (1) the long historical context showing the creationist origin and
intent of such legislation and (2) the copious, clear, documented connections
between SB 733 and earlier creationist legislation and proposed policies. Such a
disclaimer would not be needed if SB 733 were not driven by the ulterior motive
of putting intelligent design creationism into LA science classes.
The bright side is that none of these attempts to foist "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" has ever survived. The courts have ruled ALL of them unconstitutional. So your new bill in LA is only going to be temporary.
Idelogical Ironies could be another whole course where this kind of ridiculous thinking could be discussed ad nauseum.
That's my point. They're all theories. We should encourage the youth of this nation to challenge theories and seek out their own answers. Einstein theorized that the universe was static until Hubble proved him wrong. One theory that could arise from an understanding that the universe had a finite beginning is that there is a creator. I think that this could be discussed/debated in a school setting as long as it is based on observable evidence and science. And we understand that science doesn't always weigh in 100% on every topic.
It is important to realize that Einstein created his cosmological constant because he didn't want to accept that the universe had a beginning, because he knew this would force him to accept that it was "created". So, in light of his "faith" in a static universe, he followed a wrong scientific path.
The whole point is that we, as a culture, do not know with any certainty the truth about the original of life, evolution, or global warming, so we shouldn't teach the students one way or another.
Interestingly, we have heard the phrase in the last 15 years or so more and more, especially in employment ads. We're looking for someone who can THINK OUT OF THE BOX. That should not be a catch phrase, nor should it be something that is a rarity to find, at least not for people with advanced educations, yet it is. It's this very mindset of teaching what and not how to think that has made it so, however.
Where I would put my foot down is if creationism and global warming skepticism were NOT subject to critique.
...perhaps our propensity for Liberal indoctrination IS the REASON we are "falling behind other Nations," where "education" is concerned.
It is bad enough that history books in Florida are saying that Iraq was involved in the planning and attacks of 9-11, now we want to take teachers, who are well versed or should be in their fields and tell the Science teachers they can't teach a few very important facts, or if they do they must teach it from the Moral Majority views.....what next is Math class going to be about the Seven Deadly Sins? "So if Billy takes away pride and sloth then he still burns in the eternal fires of hell."
Nice. Students that are taught well know what a THEORY is. And if you want to say that there is no evidence or facts on these theories (and there are) then how can you justify teaching creationism - which has no facts or evidence?
ARE YOU F - - -ING KIDDING ME? Louisiana finely has a Governor who gives a shit about his state and is working his tail off to accomplih what many said could never be accomplished in Louisiana and you liberal wing-nuts want to complain because they are going to teach more then just Darwinism...how pathetic!!!
Someone asked what happened to Kathleen Blanco. You mean the governor who did absolutely nothing to help the people of Louisiana before, during or after Katrina...I think that a few rational thinking voters got up and went to the polls and booted her sorry ass the hell out of government!!! Now all they have left is to give the boot to the do-nothing Mayor Nagen and Louisiana will be quickly back on their road to recovery.
"Go get em" Governor Jindal - nice job!!!
As to those who disagree, I will stay out of your church if you will stay out of my biology classroom. let science be science, let religion be religion.
He is a very intellligent, well -educated man, and usually does have a straightforward approach. But, his stance on issues such as these are always based on his religious views. You are right...they haven't survived, and many groups are already planning on bringing suit against this one. Our state can't afford to waste the time and resources on defending it, especially given the current state of LA's school sytems.
Religious beliefs are not are not theories.
It's perfectly fine to subject any theory to critique, as long as that is done based on scientific evidence, and not becaue the bible says otherwise.
I agree that understanding and respect for those who believe differently is very important, but teaching kids that man and dinosaur played together (as many of the proponents of this bill are young earth fundamentalists) is not the way to accomplish that. Those discussions belong in the home, the church, or philosophy classes, not in science class. We don't teach math in Sunday school, do we?
Wasting time, money and resources that could be better used elsewhere in areas that desperately need them on what is sure to be a losing battle is certainly not doing what's best for Louisiana. It will also make it very hard to attract the bio-tech industries that state's hoping to bring in if our science curriculum includes Genesis.
hmmm now that is an oxymoron if I ever saw one.
What I hate about all of this is how you can fight these fundamentalist Christians and win over and over and over but they just keep coming back generation after generation.
Hello??? this is a free country NOT a Christian country. If you want to teach your personal faith--do it in religious school(s) you pay for and not on my tax dollar which is meant to support secular, free, public education. We are already falling behind the rest of the world in intelligence and education, why move purposely backward?
I really don't see it as an oxymoron. People can be both intelligent and religious, they just have to know when to apply which.
I've never been able to figure out why people see the teaching of the theory of eveolution as an attack on their faith. It has no more to do with religion than does the teaching of algebra.
I just found a quote from Jindal that flat out states he sees Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism, as the only true religion, which makes this that much more disturbing. When speaking about his conversion from Hindu to Christianity, he said:
"If Christianity is merely one of many equally valid religions, then the sacrifices I made, including the loss of my family's peace, were senseless.".
He also said:
The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their 'utterly depraved' minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin...The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.
Wonder how all those North Louisiana protestants feel about that statement?
I disagree Penny, NOT respecting religion as a critique of science is a violation of separation of church and state.
Secularism is not neutral, it is just as much a worldview (read religion) as Christianity. It was in most Communist and number of Socialist country's, the state religion.
Religious neutrality is the respect for ALL religions and science, not the placing of one above the other.
If I were a teacher, I would teach the theory of evolution, then invite everyone in the class to share the creation story of their culture. In Saint Paul, I would probably be lucky enough to have Somali, Hmong, Euro-Chrisitans, and Objibwa students. All of their beliefs would be welcome and respected.
That is religious neutrality - not barring their faith from the classroom.
ARE YOU F - - -ING KIDDING ME? Louisiana finely has a Governor who gives a shit about his state and is working his tail off to accomplih what many said could never be accomplished in Louisiana and you liberal wing-nuts want to complain because they are going to teach more then just Darwinism...how pathetic!!!
Teaching creationism in a biology classroom at a public school should be fought. I don't know what other states teach in their biology classrooms. I went to a public school in Texas (which also isn't too far ahead of Louisianns) but, it was probably ranked as one of the best public schools in Texas and outranked many of the private schools. We did spent a short time on Darwin, his studies, his writings and his theories, which to date have still not been disproven. A scientific theory is not just an idea that someone wrote down and called it a Theory. Some may think that but they dont understand the scientific process it takes to become a theory. A theory, by definition can never be proven, it can have tons of evidence come forth that supports it but other than that the only thing is that it can be disproven and to date NO evidence has come forth to disprove it. However, we were never told that this was fact. Any person who is receiving support from home and church that forms even a small amount of faith in Christianity is not likely to stray from that believe because of anything science teaches them.
We were taught also taught about the reactions of many who thought Darwin to be out to disprove God...in Social Studies.
We weere taught about the rain forest and that they are disappearing. we even watched a movie (fictional) that was filmed in a rain forest so that we could see some of it. I recall Mrs. Thompson telling us she was showing the film because chances are most of any of us may never actually see one in person so she thought it important to have at least a picture in our minds of it. She did not say this strictly because she thought they would be stripped away entirely but because she knew our demographic did not tend to lean towards travel, international or otherwise. I have been blessed enough to have been to about 5 rain forest and they are so spectacular.
But to think that this is a good thing is sadly mistaken. I dont have a problem with teaching creationism, from many religous and cultural standpoints as long as it is done in the social studies class rooms.
When I was in high school the requirements to graduate were slim to say the least. 2 years science 2 years math, 3 of english and 3 of history. that has since changed only I am not certain for the better.
I am all for offering an elective course in Theology in public high schools that teach as many and as much of the major religions and if time permits some minor ones too. I myself took an honors class called World Area Politics. Our teacher was brillant and with each area studied she would break us into groups and we would have to report on whatever our groups topic was, government past and present, military past and present, religion(s) past and present, education, food, and the major products that made up the GNP.
As for Creationism which is faith based and you do not need to be a follower of Creationism to be in good standing of Christianity. The main points of being a good Christian are 1 - accept that Jesus was the son of God and die on the cross to pay for our sins. 2 - do you best to follow the ten commandments. 3 Apply your faith to your behavior as much as possible and when you fail to do so and you will, recognnize it, apologize for it (even if only to God) which is to ask for Forgiveness and then learn from it.
But when we think about elections of our Presidents we look at the religion they belong to. When JFK ran people worried because he was a Catholic. And remember the Vatican was not always the high court of Catholicism but had armies and acted as a government so I can see this. What they wanted reassurance on was that his decisions regarding laws passed or vetoed would not be swayed by his faith. He lived up to this. Now this year we repeated the ignorance by questioning Mitt Romney because he is a mormon. Many questioned Barack Obama who although a Christian who never practiced the Muslim faith, but due to his name people like to jump to conclusions and unfortunately many weak minded people fell for it and despite the evidence still think he is a a secret spy for the Muslim faith. So the damage caused by ignorance is there and in the headlines. But the point is that no governing body or person should make their decisions in passing or vetoing laws based on their personal religous beliefs. There isn't a law that I am aware of stating this but we demand it when someone of a faith other than our own runs. Governors, state legislators and so on also shold be held to this standard.
Regardless of the fact that Freedom of Religion really only protects religious bodies from the actions of governments and not the other way around.
There are many many ways to look at this and debate it and to pick a side on it.
My personal thought is that any parent who is against the teaching of Darwinism and wantes Creationism taught in the class room (science none the less) must not have confidence in what they are teaching their children at home and at church. FAITH, true Faith will allow a person to learn past and present and possibly future scientific evidence and accept those findings without waivering in their faith over a scientific discovery.
However, what should be the uppermost concern here is ...what is best in raising the educational level students are receiving in public schools? Many like to talk about evidence. There is no evidence that teaching creationism over evolution will do anything but hamper their education in science. At least when students learn Darwin's theories (and he did so much more than write his Theory on Evolution) that the theory leads to many more discoveries in science and one day one of those may save the life of you, me or someone else. So what is wrong with that?
Discussions of comparitive religion belong in a theology, sociology or philosophy class, not science.
Secularism is not a religion, it is a philisophical view. Adn why do people always bring up communism and socialism when discussing this issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Science has nothing to do with religious neutrality, as it has nothing to do with religion. They are not the same thing. I still fail to understand how teaching children the accepted theory of how life evolved from one from to another in anyway compromises anyone's religion. Please explain.
I guess a few too many in Louisiana took a wrong turn on the way to "Deliverance!" tongue in cheek, not down the river with Burt Reynolds.
Science is about observation. I think a rational person, who is observant, would be hard pressed to deny that science and its companions of secularism and modernism have not threatened, and destroyed both religion and the cultures that depend on those religions.
When I travel up north I find few Inuit who still believe what their grandparents did. They prefer video games and drinking to the old rituals.
Okay, you might say, but that is not because of "science". Sure it is, in part, but it is about much more. It is about fifty years of white teachers, with white values (science and modernism) teaching the kids about how to live - white.
And the result is a shattered culture.
You can find the same thing on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. In rural towns of the delta, in Malaysia, in the Congo.......science, modernism, secularism = destroyed cultures.
Science itself is neutral but the teaching of it has a measurable palatable impact.
One can say, "but that's the way it is" but that is not what the constitution says, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Having a white, or "modern" teacher shatter a culture is clearly establishment and clearly prohibits the free exercise thereof.
So what am I saying?
Am I suggesting we not teach science or evolution? No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying we respect people who hold minority beliefs. We give them cultural breathing space.
We treat them like brothers and sisters, not like fools.
If a student challenges Darwin by insisting that the world was created when a turtle ate a fish, we do what the constitution mandates - we respect that in the classroom.
A "judge" also ordered the State to spend 1 BILLION on educational funding...that was 9 years ago, and the students are still as dumb as ever...
The honest purpose of science is to fill in the gaps of our understanding of things. Filling in those gaps does not undermine one's underlying spirituality. At about the time Darwin was writing the Origin of the Species, Gregor Mendel, a Christian monk, was discovering the first step in the mechanism of evolution in the peas of his monastery. Einstein, last century's revolutionary of physics who reinforced the counter-biblical age of the universe, said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." CG Jung, co-father of analytical psychology, said, "Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens."
I still don't think that you answered the question. If someone wants to believe that the world was created when a turtle ate a fish, it's there perogative. But it certainly shouldn't be taught as science.
I like your optimistic view, but it's very unlikely. Teachers have always had the option to bring in the type of outside materials that you speak of. This bill had one purpose, and only one purpose: to allow religious views to be taugt as fact in science class. Specifically, for fundamentalists who want to teach their young earth nonsense.
It's not about "fearing the introduction of an absurd notion". It has no place in science class.
Penny, no one is talking about "ignoring science". What we should be talking about is not imposing a worldview on others. Neutrality is embracing all possibilities, not dictating which one the state should endorse.
Let me answer the question with a question. Do you feel it appropriate to fly a team of scientists and teachers deep into the Amazon to convert nativist cultures to our scientific view of the world?
If not.
What exactly is the difference between a tribe of people living in the Amazon who believe life began when a turtle ate a fish and a tribe of people living in Louisiana who believe God made the world in seven days?
Few political progressives believe we should destroy native cultures in the Amazon with our superior knowledge, but almost every one of them believes we should obliterate cultural pockets of traditional belief in the United States.
Does anyone else find that odd?
Do you feel it appropriate to fly a team of scientists and teachers deep into the Amazon to convert nativist cultures to our scientific view of the world?
No, nor do I advocate going to the homes of people who believe God created the world in seven days to tell them otherwise. But, if either of these groups come to our schools to learn, I certainly advocate teaching them facts.
That is not imposing a "worldview", it is teaching. If someone finds those facts objectionable, they can always homeschool. Public schools have a duty and obligation to teach facts. The religious teaching is for the home and the church, and classes designed to explore such themes.
So, what are we going to do about those history classes in Florida? (mentioned above)
I don't mind people having religious opinions, but just don't be so damn ignorant about your own language.
I've not been able to find any info on that. If it's true, lets hope there are groups in FL fighting against it.
I found myself backspacing a lot in thist thread and trying to use another word each time I typed "theory", precisely because many seem to not have a complete understanding of what it means in scientific terms.
On Dictionary.com, I got 7 different definitions of the word, theory. Scientists use the first: "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. " Religionists use the seventh: "guess or conjecture". BTW I believe the Big Bang occurred. I also believe God caused it to happen. Thomas the apostle was a scientist; he needed to test his observations in order to believe them. Jesus let him make the experiment. Go thou and do likewise. Evolution is not anti-religious; religion is anti-evolution. For me, evolution is one of the tools God used, and still uses, to create the universe we inhabit. That's why He's THE creator; his creation keeps re-creating itself.
But there is a problem. What do we do when state and federal standards clash with community and home values? It appears that Louisiana is doing an excellent job of striking a workable compromise.
I see nothing in what the state is doing that prevents public schools from teaching facts. What they appear to be doing is allowing multiple views to be expressed. That is just plain good science, good teaching and good civics.
In what schools is it mentioned that the entire debate on Global Warming is based on an untested hypothesis - which is the very antithesis of science?
What we get in schools about Global Warming is not science, but religion. It is what many scientists believe with a hard emphasis on the word believe.
In what public school curriculum do we take the 1988 predictions of NASA's Jim Hansen, the guy who started it all, and compare them to actual data? In what curriculum do we compare the IPCC's models to observed data?
Hint, these predictions, this hypothesis, does not compare well with actual events.
When we expose kids to An Inconvenient Truth, do we tell them about all the "science" that Al Gore got completely wrong, like the snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro vanishing for a two year period because of sublimation, not melting? Do we tell our kids that changes in polar ice packs are caused by normal oscillations of sea current, not global temperature rise?
Where do we draw the line between science and religion there? Where is the critical thinking regarding Global Warming?
On that subject, the schools flip everything you said, on its head.
Wow, that would've done wonders for my grades! The square root of 2916 is 42, and the capital of France is Nice -- because my GOD says so!
Of course not, math is entirely provable, and therefore any hypothesis is testable.
On the other hand, many of our concepts about geography are completely abstract and subject to interpretation. For instance, what is the shape of what we popularly know as the North American continent? Draw me a picture.
Exactly what is a continent? Is it a tectonic plate? Is a landmass separated by water? If so, why a North American and South American continent when the two are connected?
Continents are defined by CONVENTION not any objective criteria.
If we are going to challenge other people's world view with "facts", we better damned well understand what we are talking about.
Not just impose our popularly held beliefs on others.
This is what is happening in the US right now unless it is stopped. We will return to the Dark Ages and become a third world country if religious fundamentalists, interpreting the bible literally and imposing their views on the public and government organizations get their way.
Really Penny?
Sherly,
It is odd that you believe that.
First of all, only a small, and shrinking number of religious people believe in the literal translation of the bible. So you have the direction of the country wrong.
Secondly during the enlightenment, the majority of scientists, much less the population believed much the same as the people you are criticizing today.
Thirdly, if you actually study the history of the middle-east you would realize that it was the Mongol invasion in 13th century that destroyed enlightened Islam, not a change in Islamic beliefs.
Fourthly, the religious right and calcification of religious beliefs in the United States are a direct consequence of aggressive changes in public policy as a result of radical interpretations of the constitution in the 50's, 60's and 70's. What is it they say in the bible? You reap what you sow?
Maybe there is an Islamnic analogy you can understand. Think of it the same way most progressives think of radical Islam and the insurgency in Iraq. When you attack religious radicals, you only make them stronger.
Governor Bobby Jindal could be onto something here. By calling off the secular invasion of Christian communities and by accomidating their beliefs without compromising the teaching of science, he is weakening them by taking away their rallying points.