Yay for Kansas!

[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!!!!

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

Sorry LH...you are wrong here. It promotes A RELIGION specifically that is the concept of a creator. It does not belong in a public school any more than astrology does. It does not meet the definition of a science.

My issue hre is not the concept but whether it is appropriate for the government to be endorsing a religious tenet. Leave that to Iran.

So we will agree to disagree.

[catland]

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.


However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.

[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.