Yay for Kansas!

[caseysmom]

ES, the slippery slope of politic al correctness took over the political institutions of this country long ago, unfortunately. Sex ed in schools without parental consent (at younger and younger ages), bans on prayer even if student driven and not lead by teachers, military speech codes (I can't curse at the lower enlisted, it might offend them), I could go on and on with the PC BS in society, but I don't believe this is PC. I think it is just backlash against it.

Again, both evolution and intelligent design belong in western philosophy class, not the science lab.

I have had to sign a note for sex ed for my kids every single year.

[Maresche]

I have had to sign a note for sex ed for my kids every single year.

So they get it through the school or so the don't get it? Just curious.

[caseysmom]

Yes they do get it through the school but only after I consent and we can go view the movies and all the materials they will see.

[Edwina's Secretary]

The first amendment speaks of freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Actually LH, you are correct. What you miss is the next step in the logic. Public schools are an arm of the government. Teaching religion in the public schools is the government teaching (i.e. establishing) a religion.

That is why private religious schools are permitted in this country. The government does not and should not endorse one religion over another.

btw...the school board in Pennsylvania that tried this?....all were voted OUT yesterday.

[JenBKR]

Hmm, I thought we had a good compromise going

[Lady's Human]

ES, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as usual. The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

Caseysmom:

There is a case in court right now in which a school in Mass had parents sign blanket permission slips for a class, and went into sex ed, which was NOT on the permission slips. This is not unusual.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject.

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too?

[smokey the elder]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

[JenBKR]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

But we are talking about where we came from - the biggest question in most of our minds. I think that's a little different...

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

Hey, that would be fine with me! I was subjected to advanced math!!!!! It was horrible!!! I still have nightmares about it!!!!

[Barbara]

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics... A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

I'm afraid you will easily win with that proposal I always hate when people can easily say "Oh I always HATED math".

[JenBKR]

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject.

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too?

I totally agree with all of this. I really don't want to make any enemies here I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

[CathyBogart]

ES, we're going to have to agree to disagree, as usual. The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

No, it promotes the view of a very narrow margin of religions. There are thousands of creation stories around the world, and a class teaching a bunch of them would be awesome. I did a research paper on creation theories of different peoples once and it was enthralling.

[JenBKR]

There are thousands of creation stories around the world, and a class teaching a bunch of them would be awesome.

That would be a very interesting class.