NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an interesting article that I came across today:
clicky (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/15/school.bible.class.ap/index.html)

STAUNTON, Virginia (AP) -- Public elementary schools will continue to allow Bible classes during class time while the local school board conducts a one-year review to determine if criticism of the practice by some parents is valid.

Several hundred people attended the school board meeting Monday, with many standing and applauding the 5-1 decision to begin the review while continuing religious classes, a tradition in Staunton and some other rural Virginia school districts for more than 60 years.

"My conscience tells me this community needs this program, and we need to keep it," board member Angie Whitesell said.

In the Weekday Religious Education program, first-, second- and third-graders go to nearby churches for Bible classes during school hours.

Some parents had asked the board to eliminate or modify the program, saying children who choose not to go are stigmatized and lose valuable class time.

The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that the classes do not violate the separation of church and state because they are held away from school premises.


Whaddya all think? I think it's ridiculous, and that some court somewhere should really strike this down as unconstitutional. After all, they're using government funds (public schools) to support/patronize/whatever a specific religion (Christianity). Which, to me, seems like a clear violation of the first amendment.

Anyways, your thoughts, please.

Ugh, it makes me disgusted

Seriously, if they even wonder why these things don't pass it gives me even less respect for them.

I have less respect for our systems when they pass

I think Bible study should be an elective for public high schools, as it's effect on literature was immense. But outside of that, no.

Give me 15 minutes and i can relate to the board a half dozen precedents as to why this is illegal, a year my ass. they know this shit is illegal and the criticism is valid, they are just trying to put off. i hoipe some one takes their dumbasses to court

Do they take them to mosques and synagogues as well?

Do they take them to mosques and synagogues as well?
Nope. Even if they did, the fact that they aren't studying the Satanic Bible, for example, means it's unequal treatment for some religions.

Nope. Even if they did, the fact that they aren't studying the Satanic Bible, for example, means it's unequal treatment for some religions.
then its wrong, indoctrinating kids that young in a certain religion through a public system

Only if they have a comparitive religion classes that include multiple religions. Otherwise the ACLU needs to get their ass in gear.

As an elective only.

It should not be required.

Well, I'd be cool if it were a high-school literature course...that was an elective...

Well, I'd be cool if it were a high-school literature course...
Elective, of course, but yeah. But at an elementary school level...no way. Not a chance.

Elective, of course, but yeah. But at an elementary school level...no way. Not a chance.
Of course.

Several hundred people attended the school board meeting Monday, with many standing and applauding the 5-1 decision to begin the review while continuing religious classes, a tradition in Staunton and some other rural Virginia school districts for more than 60 years.

has anyone else noticed that 60 years isnt exactly long for a tradition?

You know, you claim that indoctrinating kids that young should be illegal. But, if that's true, they shouldn't be going to school. Public school is indoctrination. It's just a more acceptable one.

has anyone else noticed that 60 years isnt exactly long for a tradition?
I'm pretty sure that before that the bible was actually used in almost every public school, but then the courts threw that out. This is a pretty clear cut case of government endorsement of religion, it doesn't really matter how many people in the area support the classes. I think the ACLU could probably take this on with one hand tied behind their back.

The Supreme Court said it was ok, so it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like it, there are always private schools.

The first amendment doesn't say anything about equal treatments of all religions. It says that a national religion may not be enforced, but it also does not prohibit the practice of any religion. I don't agree with the school board enforcing the children to read the Bible (even though I do think it's a good idea because of my own beliefs), but not allowing prayer or Bible reading in schools is enforcing a different religion. We like to call this religion atheism. Not allowing a person to read a Bible, pray when they want to, or talk to their fellow classmates about God is a violation of the first amendment, because it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I have no doubts that this debate will go on until the end of time or the end of our nation, whichever comes first.

Well, being a Christian, I would expect myself to have a bias on this topic. However, while I'm sure that it would be absolutely fantastic for my religion if this practice continued, I don't believe that a religion should be manditory in a public setting such as that. I do believe that it is up to individuals to decide their own religions. I may not agree with what some people believe, but I'm not going to shove it down their guts. (:

The thing is, the school is technically seporate from the government, in the sense that it is not the government running the school, only paying for it to be run. I would think that this kind of matter should be put to a vote by the people, as such things were originally intended to be by the Founding Fathers.

This really wouldn't be such an issue if our country had remained a Republic in our eyes instead of a Democracy.

Just my 4.3 cents and then some.

I totally hate that! That's unconstitutional! Public schools cannot allow bible study like that. it is establishing a religion. If the kids don't go because they are Hindu or something, they are screwed by the school. Wow, great way to raise those kids, fuck them over early in life. They kill themselves faster. OMFG!

The Supreme Court said it was ok, so it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like it, there are always private schools.
That part of the article confused me. It says the classes were allowed because they are held away from school premises, but it also says schools will continue to allow Bible classes during class time. How are they holding classes during class time away from school premises?

The Supreme Court said it was ok, so it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like it, there are always private schools.

No, private schools are to send your children to if they want religion, not to get them away from it.

The Supreme Court doesn't actually change the constitution, it just sets a precedent with it's decision. Constitutional Ammendments change what things are constitutional.

In 1896, the Supreme Court said that segregation is constitutional, making lots of Jim Crow laws in the South be totally legal. If the Supreme Court later said that they shouldn't take on a case like that because it's already been declared by a previous Supreme Court that it's constitutional, where would we be now?

That part of the article confused me. It says the classes were allowed because they are held away from school premises, but it also says schools will continue to allow Bible classes during class time. How are they holding classes during class time away from school premises?
As I understand it they were being bussed away to another area.

The Supreme Court said it was ok, so it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like it, there are always private schools.
the case they are basing that supposition on ( Zorach v. Clauson) states that "released time program", a voluntary measure in which kids could be released from school for a period of time to participate in religios excercises elsewhere. that is NOT the case here as the school is maknig the classes mandatory and bussing the kids off campus and it is on school time. if it is challenged in court it WILL fail

No, private schools are to send your children to if they want religion, not to get them away from it.

The Supreme Court doesn't actually change the constitution, it just sets a precedent with it's decision. Constitutional Ammendments change what things are constitutional.

In 1896, the Supreme Court said that segregation is constitutional, making lots of Jim Crow laws in the South be totally legal. If the Supreme Court later said that they shouldn't take on a case like that because it's already been declared by a previous Supreme Court that it's constitutional, where would we be now?
Seperation of church and state is a precedent, it isn't actually in the Constitution.

the case they are basing that supposition on states that "released time program" a voluntary measure in which coulds could be released from school for a period of time to participate in religios excercises elsewhere. that is NOT the case here as the school is maknig the classes mandatory and bussing the kids off campus and it is on school time. if it is challenged in court it WILL fail
It's not mandatory.

What you guys need to keep in mind is that the First Amendment does not mean that the government must ban any religious practices from public schools, but that the government cannot establish a "manditory" religion, so to speak.

:headbang: This entire story makes me really queasy. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? Shouldn't the Government step in to stop this, oh wait, Our government right now is on their side.

What you guys need to keep in mind is that the First Amendment does not mean that the government must ban any religious practices from public schools, but that the government cannot establish a "manditory" religion, so to speak.

This isn't to attack you personally, but...

IF YOU GUYS WOULD READ PAST POSTS, IT WOULD SAVE YOU TIME.

Seperation of church and state is a precedent, it isn't actually in the Constitution.
That doesn't make it any less real.

:headbang: This entire story makes me really queasy. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? Shouldn't the Government step in to stop this, oh wait, Our government right now is on their side.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT A LAW...READ UP ON YOUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE YOU POST...THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT A LAW...READ UP ON YOUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE YOU POST...THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE
standing supreme court precedent is the law. read the constitution

This isn't to attack you personally, but...

IF YOU GUYS WOULD READ PAST POSTS, IT WOULD SAVE YOU TIME.

*loves your fascination with caps lock*

I know that these things were previously stated, but what's funny is that people decide not to keep them in mind when they post thereafter. So, I just, like, restate things. Sometimes.

I don't know. WHAT IS LIFE?! *sob*

1. I do not care too much, for I am in Private school and have those classes anyway.
2. I could care less what the 1st ammendment says, they should still be able to do so if there is little opposition, AND those who wish not to participate may leave, thus not makining the class obligatory to school.

standing supreme court precedent is the law. read the constitution

Please state where in the Constitution that is said, and please state how that is actually important to this topic?

Never claimed it to be a law, Although its defeneitly a precedent thats longer then 60 years.

1. I do not care too much, for I am in Private school and have those classes anyway.
2. I could care less what the 2nd ammendment says, they should still be able to do so if there is little opposition, AND those who wish not to participate may leave, thus not makining the class obligatory to school.
...I think many people have a strong opposition to bearing arms in schools.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT A LAW...READ UP ON YOUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE YOU POST...THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE
Seperation of church and state is the way the first ammendment is is enforced. By seperating the government from religious matters it neither establishes nor prohibits the free exercise of religion. I don't understand whats so hard about this.

...I think many people have a strong opposition to bearing arms in schools.
:rolleyes:
BUT this topic is not for guns, it is for BIBLE CLASSES

Please state where in the Constitution that is said, and please state how that is actually important to this topic?
Exactly! Where is it in the constitution that a president can only serve two terms? That's a precedent.

:rolleyes:
BUT this topic is not for guns, it is for BIBLE CLASSES
Then its not the second amendment, unless "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" now has to do with bible classes now.

Wait 4 years, then sue.

Exactly! Where is it in the constitution that a president can only serve two terms? That's a precedent.
Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Please state where in the Constitution that is said, and please state how that is actually important to this topic?
You do realize how the court system works right? The decisions of previous cases impact decisons of later cases. Thats why lawyers cite things like Roe v. Wade and Marbury v. Madison. The court's decision in this matter clarifies laws, and definitons. It is actually important to this topic because the case in question would be overturned on precident.

Seperation of church and state is the way the first ammendment is is enforced. By seperating the government from religious matters it neither establishes nor prohibits the free exercise of religion. I don't understand whats so hard about this.
Separation of church and state is the arguement used to keep children from talking to others about God. How does the government support that? They don't. That's prohibiting the expression of a religion.

:(
Then its not the second amendment, unless "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" now has to do with bible classes now.
OOHHHHH I see I accidentally put 2nd, sorry. :(
I really meant 1st ammendment

Separation of church and state is the arguement used to keep children from talking to others about God. How does the government support that? They don't. That's prohibiting the expression of a religion.
No, they don't, they prevent teaching about a specific religion in a religion class that is intended to promote that religion in school.

Please state where in the Constitution that is said, and please state how that is actually important to this topic?
not important to the topic so much as it is important to whom i was QUOTING when i made the statement

and i was making that statement under article 6 section 2, but i could be wrong. but considering new laws cant be made that are contrary to standing precedents of the supreme court its fair enough, well without clever wording. like if the supreme court deems pot constitutional, laws cant be made to ban it or make it extremely hard to get

:(

OOHHHHH I see I accidentally put 2nd, sorry. :(
I really meant 1st ammendment
So if 90% of the country thinks that it is fine and dandy to say, kill the jews, they should be allowed to kill the jews?

Amendment XXII

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
You're right, I'm wrong. *Inserts foot in mouth*

That doesn't make it any less real.
But since the Court deciding that this particaular activity isn't unconstitutional, it takes precedence over SoCaS.

Separation of church and state is the arguement used to keep children from talking to others about God. How does the government support that? They don't. That's prohibiting the expression of a religion.
You are allowed to talk to others about god. You are also required to shut up when the teacher tells you to, no matter what you are talking about. BTW the government does prohibit certain expressions of religion. If your religion required the sacrifice of virgins upon the altar of Thor, they wouldn't let you do it.

So if 90% of the country thinks that it is fine and dandy to say, kill the jews, they should be allowed to kill the jews?
Well because we are a democracy it may eventually be possible, but I think we are considering this in a lower level.
And also the Bible can really promote better behaviour and attitudes in school.

Well, the town likes it, which is quite clear, since parents continue to send their kids to the class.

I personaly think the whole religion obsession is bloody stupid.
Anyway, perhaps the REASON they arent taking the kids to other religious establishments is because there ARENT any, or because all the kids are Christain.
So, its simple:
If there are Muslims, send them to a Mosque
If there are Jews, send them to a Synagouge
If there are Buddhists, send them to a small patch of lawn to meditate
If there are Hindu kids, send them to whatever it is Hindu people worship in
If there are Zoroastians, light a fire.

You cant be equal with people who arent there, I think that we shouldnt be deabting this without some demographics of the area ;)

You do realize how the court system works right? The decisions of previous cases impact decisons of later cases. Thats why lawyers cite things like Roe v. Wade and Marbury v. Madison. The court's decision in this matter clarifies laws, and definitons. It is actually important to this topic because the case in question would be overturned on precident.

I realize this, but I believe that if one wants to debate, they actually have to present the facts with some evidence, other than "I say so." or at least explain their opinion in more detail than a sentence or two.

Well, the town likes it, which is quite clear, since parents continue to send their kids to the class.

I personaly think the whole religion obsession is bloody stupid.
Anyway, perhaps the REASON they arent taking the kids to other religious establishments is because there ARENT any, or because all the kids are Christain.
So, its simple:
If there are Muslims, send them to a Mosque
If there are Jews, send them to a Synagouge
If there are Buddhists, send them to a small patch of lawn to meditate
If there are Hindu kids, send them to whatever it is Hindu people worship in
If there are Zoroastians, light a fire.

You cant be equal with people who arent there, I think that we shouldnt be deabting this without some demographics of the area ;)
My first point exactly.

You are allowed to talk to others about god. You are also required to shut up when the teacher tells you to, no matter what you are talking about. BTW the government does prohibit certain expressions of religion. If your religion required the sacrifice of virgins upon the altar of Thor, they wouldn't let you do it.
It only prohibits expressions that interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of fellow citizens. There have recently been situations where childrens weren't allowed to read a Bible in school, pray, and talk to fellow classmates.

But since the Court deciding that this particaular activity isn't unconstitutional, it takes precedence over SoCaS.
They decided that voluntary bible study classes by the school after designated class room hours and off of school property is constitutional. The fact that they say that this is constitutinal does not mean that it is. That is yet to be determined.

Well because we are a democracy it may eventually be possible, but I think we are considering this in a lower level.
And also the Bible can really promote better behaviour and attitudes in school.
Actually, it isn't, just for the reason that you are attempting to disregard, the constitution provides a base level of unalienable rights, and technically the government has no ability to remove rights from us beyond what powers are given to them in the Constitution.


Oh, and prove it.

They decided that voluntary bible study classes by the school after designated class room hours and off of school property is constitutional. The fact that they say that this is constitutinal does not mean that it is. That is yet to be determined.
I don't recall that it had to be after designated classroom hours. But I could be wrong.

The Supreme Court said it was ok, so it's not unconstitutional. If you don't like it, there are always private schools.

Just a comment:

The whole point of a private school is for religions to educate children on the religion the school is for. Public schools should be secular, period!

It only prohibits expressions that interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of fellow citizens. There have recently been situations where childrens weren't allowed to read a Bible in school, pray, and talk to fellow classmates.
You are allowed to pray in school. You are allowed to read the bible in school. You are allowed to talk to other about religion. Just not during class time. You can pray to yourself (The way Jesus says you should BTW) whenever you want. You can read the bible to yourself whenever you are aloud to read a non classroom book. You are allowed to talk about religion whenever you are allowed to talk to your friends. You can't take up publicly funded classroom time to do so. If that were the case Muslims, Hindus, Buhdists, Scientologists, and Church of Satan members would be allowed to do the same thing. I doubt you want that.

Just a comment:

The whole point of a private school is for religions to educate children on the religion the school is for. Public schools should be secular, period!
The whole point of private school should be to provide an alternative to public school. UPS to the Postal Service, for example.

The whole point of private school should be to provide an alternative to public school. UPS to the Postal Service, for example.

Yes, but the public school should be secular. If you want your children raised in a religions enviroment, send them to a private school. Keep religion out of the public school system.

I don't recall that it had to be after designated classroom hours. But I could be wrong.
If its a comparitive literature course that uses the bible as one of the books in the lesson then no. A bible study course has to be an after school extra curricular affair. Fun Fact: The law that allowed Bible Study programs is the same one that forces all schools to allow Gay/Straight Alliances to be formed if the students wish to do so.

The whole point of private school should be to provide an alternative to public school. UPS to the Postal Service, for example.
UPS is package delivery. USPS is mail.

Yes, but the public school should be secular. If you want your children raised in a religions enviroment, send them to a private school. Keep religion out of the public school system.
The teachers should be secular. The school itself should not be.

You are allowed to pray in school. You are allowed to read the bible in school. You are allowed to talk to other about religion. Just not during class time. You can pray to yourself (The way Jesus says you should BTW) whenever you want. You can read the bible to yourself whenever you are aloud to read a non classroom book. You are allowed to talk about religion whenever you are allowed to talk to your friends. You can't take up publicly funded classroom time to do so. If that were the case Muslims, Hindus, Buhdists, Scientologists, and Church of Satan members would be allowed to do the same thing. I doubt you want that.

You are allowed to pray in school, but there's still going to be an uproar caused in some places. I read an article recently in my government history book that said that a child was suspended from the school because he said a prayer before he took a test. After much debate in courts, however, he got back into school. Was it worth it for a religious cause? Of course! But should it have even happened? No. Teachers need to be taught that it is okay for children to privately practice their religion in public, whatever religion that may be.

If its a comparitive literature course that uses the bible as one of the books in the lesson then no. A bible study course has to be an after school extra curricular affair. Fun Fact: The law that allowed Bible Study programs is the same one that forces all schools to allow Gay/Straight Alliances to be formed if the students wish to do so.
Or during lunch.

UPS is package delivery. USPS is mail.
Either is both.

The teachers should be secular. The school itself should not be.

Are you saying that a Christian should be disallowed from teaching in a public school, even if they keep their religious beliefs to themself? Just asking for clarity.

You are allowed to pray in school, but there's still going to be an uproar caused in some places. I read an article recently in my government history book that said that a child was suspended from the school because he said a prayer before he took a test. After much debate in courts, however, he got back into school. Was it worth it for a religious cause? Of course! But should it have even happened? No. Teachers need to be taught that it is okay for children to privately practice their religion in public, whatever religion that may be.
The fact that uproar is caused, doesn't mean you don't have a right to do it. Sometimes you have to fight for your right (to party).

Yes, but the public school should be secular. If you want your children raised in a religions enviroment, send them to a private school. Keep religion out of the public school system.

Are you saying that because you're against religion? What if a child asked a question related to a certain type of religious belief that was related to a certain topic? Should that be frowned upon, or should the teacher actually try to broaden the student's, and their own, mind?

Actually, it isn't, just for the reason that you are attempting to disregard, the constitution provides a base level of unalienable rights, and technically the government has no ability to remove rights from us beyond what powers are given to them in the Constitution.


Oh, and prove it.
Prove what?

The fact that uproar is caused, doesn't mean you don't have a right to do it. Sometimes you have to fight for your right (to party).

True.....but the fact of the matter is that on such an important subject as religion, I think that a simple thing as the rules for praying silently in class should have been addressed well before now. It's not like Christianity was just created (:

What if the whole school/class decided that it would be ok?
should the government take away their rights of choice?

Are you saying that because you're against religion? What if a child asked a question related to a certain type of religious belief that was related to a certain topic? Should that be frowned upon, or should the teacher actually try to broaden the student's, and their own, mind?

I didn't say that. Learning about other religions is fine, as an optional choice. Having it forced onto you is a violation of the separation of Church and State. It is not the school's right to force a particular viewpoint onto students.

Are you saying that a Christian should be disallowed from teaching in a public school, even if they keep their religious beliefs to themself? Just asking for clarity.
Sorry, I mean "teachings." It's a bit late :)
EDIT: And I do think teachers should be allowed to share their beliefs. Just not let their beliefs affect a student's grade.

The teachers should be secular. The school itself should not be.

I have difficulty understanding this logic. Could you elaborate?

I have difficulty understanding this logic. Could you elaborate?
Read post above yours, I made a typo.

I didn't say that. Learning about other religions is fine, as an optional choice. Having it forced onto you is a violation of the separation of Church and State. It is not the school's right to force a particular viewpoint onto students.
Once again, if their is opposition then those students may leave the class.
Their is a similar case where a science class in either Penn. or VA decided to teach both Creation and Evolution; there was little to no opposition

Read post above yours, I made a typo.

Ok.

True.....but the fact of the matter is that on such an important subject as religion, I think that a simple thing as the rules for praying silently in class should have been addressed well before now. It's not like Christianity was just created (:
On a subject as important as race relations, a matter as drinking at a water fountain should have been addressed long before it was. It wasn't though, and took lengthy court battles the settle. The country ain't perfect.

Once again, if their is opposition then those students may leave the class.
Their is a similar case where a science class in either Penn. or VA decided to teach both Creation and Evolution; there was little to no opposition

But this is elementary school. The children arn't just able to "leave the class". This is being forced on them, which is illegal.

Sorry, I mean "teachings." It's a bit late :)
EDIT: And I do think teachers should be allowed to share their beliefs. Just not let their beliefs affect a student's grade.
tell that to my brother's college professor, she lowered his grade because she is a feminazi and he disagreed with her.

But this is elementary school. The children arn't just able to "leave the class". This is being forced on them, which is illegal.
they are allowed to sit aoutside the class.

Are you saying that because you're against religion? What if a child asked a question related to a certain type of religious belief that was related to a certain topic? Should that be frowned upon, or should the teacher actually try to broaden the student's, and their own, mind?

He is not saying he is against religion, but that he is against a religious enviroment where students are pressured either by peers, teachers, or school policy. And yes I agree with you religion is an important subject, but we must see it from a secular point of veiw an unbiased veiw. Secular is not against religion it is not being effected by that religion. Students moral code might be from their religion so that can bias their veiws, but everyone changes religious morals to their own veiws by ignoring some parts and adding others.

they are allowed to sit aoutside the class.

That's not the point. The school shouldn't have the right to single them out like that.

IF all the whacko Christians want their children to go to bible school, they can send them to private schools.

On a subject as important as race relations, a matter as drinking at a water fountain should have been addressed long before it was. It wasn't though, and took lengthy court battles the settle. The country ain't perfect.

Please keep in mind that a matter such as religion has been around much longer than the debate over drinking out of a water fountain. (: Thought please don't think that I don't believe that's not an important topic, as well. I just don't know why it should take so long for religious "rules" to be set down.

*mutters* I don't know, I just think that some rules should be set down in stone and then memorized by our wonderfully intelligent citizens.

I've got like, 13 posts on this forum, and I'm already annoyed with America slightly more. Humorous.

they are allowed to sit aoutside the class.
Like elementary school kids would voluntarily make themselves different in the eyes of their peers, over a cause they don't even really understand.

tell that to my brother's college professor, she lowered his grade because she is a feminazi and he disagreed with her.
I would tell her that, if I knew. That's bullshit. However, similarily, a Christian teacher teaching creationism is equally wrong. I believe in creationism, but it's not prevaling scientific theory. As such it doesn't belong in the curriculum.

That's not the point. The school shouldn't have the right to single them out like that.

IF all the whacko Christians want their children to go to bible school, they can send them to private schools.
WHat if the parents cannot afford private school????

I would tell her that, if I knew. That's bullshit. However, similarily, a Christian teacher teaching creationism is equally wrong. I believe in creationism, but it's not prevaling scientific theory. As such it doesn't belong in the curriculum.
Unless the curriculum shares both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation.

they are allowed to sit aoutside the class.

But because of the the nature of the program they feel pressure from classmates, verbal or nonverbal, and from teachers, usually nonverbal. They also are having wasted class time, something their parents pay for through taxes. (Even though less and less money is going towards Education)

WHat if the parents cannot afford private school????
Then it sucks to be them. Go to a sunday school at the church, or teach them their beliefs themselves. You can't force your beliefs on everyone else just because its the cheapest way for you.

He is not saying he is against religion, but that he is against a religious enviroment where students are pressured either by peers, teachers, or school policy. And yes I agree with you religion is an important subject, but we must see it from a secular point of veiw an unbiased veiw. Secular is not against religion it is not being effected by that religion. Students moral code might be from their religion so that can bias their veiws, but everyone changes religious morals to their own veiws by ignoring some parts and adding others.

Actually, there is becoming more and more of a stereotype-influenced bias against Christianity and the like. Religion is viewed as silly and only for old fogey people or dumb idiots who are insecure about themselves and want a cover for what's going wrong with their lives.

But yeah, I basically agree with you. I'd like to hear from his own mouth what he meant, though. ^_^

Unless the curriculum shares both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation.
Bzzzt wrong.

Evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory. Creationism is not an accepted scientific theory and therfore has no place in a science classroom.

And please note that Takuma calls Christians (at least the parents) "whacko":

"IF all the +whacko+ Christians want their children to go to bible school, they can send them to private schools."

I wonder. . .

The first amendment is so interesting. It always gets people in a fury when public funds are used in a religious context. "Using public funds to indoctrinate children in religion (Christianity) is bad."

What about everything else that is likely "indoctrinated" into children by these same schools and funds that is not necessarily religious, but completely along the lines of ideology or opinion?

My issue is. . .I'd prefer my child not to be indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is perfectly normal and ok. But what rights do I have if the public schools with their public funds instruct my child in that way?

I know, I know. Then I should instruct my child otherwise during time away from school and when at church/sunday school. Blah blah blah. In this case, why can't those parents, so concerned with religious "indoctrination" just instruct their children otherwise at home and the weekly secular humanist meeting.

Don't get me wrong, church and state need to remain separate. . .I agree wtih this AS A CHRISTIAN even. But what else should the state remain separated from? And to what degree?

In short, I'm simply trying to reason out what the first amendment covers.

Bzzzt wrong.

Evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory. Creationism is not an accepted scientific theory and therfore has no place in a science classroom.
Intelligent design in general qualifies. But I think that is adequetly addressed by explaning the flaws in evolution.

And please note that Takuma calls Christians (at least the parents) "whacko":

"IF all the +whacko+ Christians want their children to go to bible school, they can send them to private schools."
well, I guess most christians can go to regular schools since only a few are "wacko"

Prove what?
That the bible instills morality and lowers crime/etc.

First off I had to skip about 3 pages of this discusion because I have lots of home work tonight, so if I say something that was stated before don't get mad.

I do not think the school should be teaching religion that is what a church (or other place of worship) is for. If the parents want the kids to learn about the bible take them to church, thats all there is to it. One thing I don't see the same as this goverment is banning religion in schools. I know someone who was sent to the main office by the teacher for wearing a cross on his necklace. This kind of thing is repressing religion. What is happening at this school (the one that this thread started out talking about) is enforcing religion. Both of these things need to stop, they are both unconstitutional.

goddamnit I don't want my tax money going to teaching kids abut religion. jesus christ.

Intelligent design in general qualifies. But I think that is adequetly addressed by explaning the flaws in evolution.
Pzzt, wrong. Saying god did it doesn't cut it as far as science goes.

As being of a different religon, I just see this as a way to force religon onto children, I remember when I was in grade school and had to go to church every sunday and I hated it, but did I have any right to choose hell no, I honestly disrespect this decission to not outlaw this, I think there should be a questionare that asks the students if they'd like to go to church in school or not, either way thought it dosen't matter to me, no kids and I'm not in gradeschool, I had to go through the same bs so I look back and just see the devoted followers of christianity as mostly people forced to believe a certain thing through parents and school related activities, so I don't diss the religon but at the same time I don't think I'll ever support something so hypocritical, and its funny, I live 5 minutes away from Staunton, VA

Pzzt, wrong. Saying god did it doesn't cut it as far as science goes.
Saying something besides blind chance does. After all, saying evolution has never been replicated is a valid critism of the theory.

Intelligent design in general qualifies. But I think that is adequetly addressed by explaning the flaws in evolution.

Intelligent design=religion
Evolution=science

which should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom.

goddamnit I don't want my tax money going to teaching kids abut religion. jesus christ.

That has to be one of the funniest and saddest sentences I've seen in a long time.

Intelligent design in general qualifies. But I think that is adequetly addressed by explaning the flaws in evolution.
Please don't let this become an evolution debate.

No you are wrong. Inteligent design by its very nature is not scientific. It basically says "Things happened we can't explain, so obviously someone we can never explain caused them to happen for some reason we'll never know." It violates the very nature of scientific inquiry. You can't simply say, we don't know all the answers so lets just say god did it. You have to explain the events in a logical and intelligent manner. Ok no more of this.

Intelligent design=religion
Evolution=science

which should be taught in a SCIENCE classroom.
Plenty of respectable scientists advocate ID. If you really want to debate the merits of each, go ahead, just not in this thread. The fact remains that neither theory is perfect, scientifically or otherwise.

well, I guess most christians can go to regular schools since only a few are "wacko"

I will admit that some Christians really do not portray us very well.....but we really do it out of love, I swear.

But yeah, sometimes I really, really feel like biting some really weird Christians in the butt and giving them a reality check.

Saying something besides blind chance does. After all, saying evolution has never been replicated is a valid critism of the theory.
Yes it would be. If evolution didn't take a very VERY long time. We don't have a billion years to spend observing a dish of blue green algae.

Intelligent design=religion
Evolution=science

Eek. I don't know. . .

Intelligent design is not necessarily religion. Evolution, however, could be considered religious in certain contexts.

All I'm saying here is, don't go all black and white on this particular issue.

Give me 15 minutes and i can relate to the board a half dozen precedents as to why this is illegal, a year my ass. they know this shit is illegal and the criticism is valid, they are just trying to put off. i hoipe some one takes their dumbasses to court
i agree, they are just trying nnot to get sued :sniper:

About morals being taught in school, I give that a thumbs up! :D I donot thing they should be based on a religion's teachings. The morals should be practical and based on laws. 1) Do not murder. 2) Respect others property. 3) Take care of your body. and so on.

All post I make are not truths (except for in my mind) you are free to disagree with me without arguing. :p :p

Yes it would be. If evolution didn't take a very VERY long time. We don't have a billion years to spend observing a dish of blue green algae.
See, now that sounds like just making something up to support a theory. "Oh it works, it just takes too long for you to notice."

I wonder. . .

The first amendment is so interesting. It always gets people in a fury when public funds are used in a religious context. "Using public funds to indoctrinate children in religion (Christianity) is bad."

What about everything else that is likely "indoctrinated" into children by these same schools and funds that is not necessarily religious, but completely along the lines of ideology or opinion?

My issue is. . .I'd prefer my child not to be indoctrinated with the idea that homosexuality is perfectly normal and ok. But what rights do I have if the public schools with their public funds instruct my child in that way?

I know, I know. Then I should instruct my child otherwise during time away from school and when at church/sunday school. Blah blah blah. In this case, why can't those parents, so concerned with religious "indoctrination" just instruct their children otherwise at home and the weekly secular humanist meeting.

Don't get me wrong, church and state need to remain separate. . .I agree wtih this AS A CHRISTIAN even. But what else should the state remain separated from? And to what degree?

In short, I'm simply trying to reason out what the first amendment covers.

I'm seriously looking for an answer or response to this.

Saying something besides blind chance does. After all, saying evolution has never been replicated is a valid critism of the theory.
Replicated? No. However, we can't replicate gravity, shall we assume that it's god's hand pushing us down?

OMG NO NOT THE HOMOES!!!!One!!

About morals being taught in school, I give that a thumbs up! :D I donot thing they should be based on a religion's teachings. The morals should be practical and based on laws. 1) Do not murder. 2) Respect others property. 3) Take care of your body. and so on.

All post I make are not truths (except for in my mind) you are free to disagree with me without arguing. :p :p

Why not murder? Why not steal? Why respect other property?

On what reasoning do these necessarily make sense? Is there any absolute governance to these?

About morals being taught in school, I give that a thumbs up! :D I donot thing they should be based on a religion's teachings. The morals should be practical and based on laws. 1) Do not murder. 2) Respect others property. 3) Take care of your body. and so on.

All post I make are not truths (except for in my mind) you are free to disagree with me without arguing. :p :p
Thats fine, I don't think anyone would argue with you. This is about a bible class though, thats pretty specific.

Alright, bedtime.....so if anybody says anything to what I posted, I'm sorry for not responding to you. :P

And Rothdor, it only covers the government establishing a religion. That's it. If you don't want your children indoctrinated with that principle, then you'll either have to pull them out of the school, or just hope that they don't accept that message.

Replicated? No. However, we can't replicate gravity, shall we assume that it's god's hand pushing us down?
But when gravity is taught, it's taught with the cavaet that it isn't proven.

I'm seriously looking for an answer or response to this.
I'd like it if schools didn't teach my kids to be tolerating the darkies and their perverse ways, but they won't listen. But hey whatcha gonna do...

About morals being taught in school, I give that a thumbs up! :D I donot thing they should be based on a religion's teachings. The morals should be practical and based on laws. 1) Do not murder. 2) Respect others property. 3) Take care of your body. and so on.

All post I make are not truths (except for in my mind) you are free to disagree with me without arguing. :p :p
But without an outside being there can be no point in morality because there was no one to create it.

I'd like it if schools didn't teach my kids to be tolerating the darkies and their perverse ways, but they won't listen. But hey whatcha gonna do...
There's a difference in being taught to tolerate people based on their genes and based on their choices.

Goodnight.

Why not murder? Why not steal? Why respect other property?

On what reasoning do these necessarily make sense? Is there any absolute governance to these?

They make sense on the reasoning that they are against the law. Another thing, whould you like someone stealing from you? or murdering you? or damaging your property?

See, now that sounds like just making something up to support a theory. "Oh it works, it just takes too long for you to notice."
...its actually one of the central points of the theory.

...its actually one of the central points of the theory.
Oil takes millions of years to create naturally, but it can be reproduced in the lab.

Alright, bedtime.....so if anybody says anything to what I posted, I'm sorry for not responding to you. :P

And Rothdor, it only covers the government establishing a religion. That's it. If you don't want your children indoctrinated with that principle, then you'll either have to pull them out of the school, or just hope that they don't accept that message.

But aren't newer ideas being accepted in somewhat religious ideas. Many parents don't want their children being taught in public school that Christianity is THE religion, and that being accepted as truth. In the same way there are various things I see being taught in an ABSOLUTE manner, without room for debate; such as: Homosexuality IS normal and NOT harmful.

Not to mention, many many public school teachers are part of the NEA, most of whom are a part of the Democratic Party. Can we be sure these ideas, ideologies, and religion-like ideas are not being taught or used with public funds?

Just a thought.

There's a difference in being taught to tolerate people based on their genes and based on their choices.
Don't you be starting that crap again


All current scientific research points to a genetic component in homosexuality. Now just stop.

Don't you be starting that crap again


All current scientific research points to a genetic component in homosexuality. Now just stop.
If by all you mean no, then sure. However, regardless of whether there is a genetic component or not, the fact remains they act on their dispositions. People can have tendencies to kill, drink alcohol, or whatever. Doesn't mean they act on them.

Oil takes millions of years to create naturally, but it can be reproduced in the lab.

Your point?

They make sense on the reasoning that they are against the law. Another thing, whould you like someone stealing from you? or murdering you? or damaging your property?

Against the law? Where is the ABSOLUTE law? They don't necessarily make sense. Before cannibalism was outlawed in the United States, was is a perfectly ok thing to do?

No, I don't want those things (hehe, I had my car broken into and had a gun pulled on me early Monday morning), but. . .I don't want them done to me because of something very different from current US or Arizona state laws.

Oil takes millions of years to create naturally, but it can be reproduced in the lab.
Oil is an organic chemical compound. Yeah we can makes those in labs :rolleyes:

Oil is an organic chemical compound. Yeah we can makes those in labs :rolleyes:
And things that evolve aren't organic?

*dragging the post kicking and screaming back on topic*

Having grown up in rural Idaho, I can tell you something about this system, because the LDS church practiced exactly the same thing. Basically, what they would do whenever they zoned a school is to buy a square of land, except for one small corner which the LDS church bought. The district would build the high/middle school, and the church would build a seminary building. Every day, most of the students would get one class period for what was called "release time", where they would go out of the school, across the walkway, and into the seminary building, where they would recieve lessons. One year it would be the Old Testament, one year it would be the New Testament, one year it would be the Book of Mormon, and one year would be. . .something else.

Now, this system is not technically against the law. The students are technically out of school, they are not getting any grades or crediting for that class (although they had to have a lawsuit to make this go through). Are there disadvantages to this system? Sure. For one, those who don't go can (but not always do) feel left out or isolated. I myself did not feel this, except for one of those moments when one of my friends would forget himself and wax poetic about the day when everyone converted. Mostly, though, the joke was one them, because while they were in class learning about Baruch, I was learning about everything else, and "everything else" helps a lot more in the college application process. Although I only graduated in the top third of my class, I'd venture to guess that no one in the history of that school had graduated with more math and science credits than I had.

What is the moral? Well, I'm not sure there is one. But I don't necessarily think that religious teaching like this is a prima facie evil. It does have its advantages, and although I think those are outweighed by their disadvantages, other people seem to think differently, and are willing to pay the consequences, such as a lower standard of living.

But without an outside being there can be no point in morality because there was no one to create it.
No point to morality?
Well, first, there is quite definately a point to morality either way. Do you mean by your statement that if it were proved there were no God, you would go and do whatever because there would be no point in being kind towards others? I doubt it. Without morality, human society would most likely fall apart, I would think. That's the point of morality.

If by all you mean no, then sure. However, regardless of whether there is a genetic component or not, the fact remains they act on their dispositions. People can have tendencies to kill, drink alcohol, or whatever. Doesn't mean they act on them.

I completely agree with you. The human mind (in most of us anyway) is above being controlled to do something so complex such running your car into a familly by a microscopic "chemical imbalance"

And things that evolve aren't organic?

Evolution is change in genetic frequency of a species over time. It by definition takes a large amount of time

By the way, we have observed it in a lab. Fruit flies have very short generations and we are able to observe changes in alleles in them.

Evolution is change in genetic frequency of a species over time. It by definition takes a large amount of time

By the way, we have observed it in a lab. Fruit flies have very short generations and we are able to observe changes in alleles in them.
That's microevolution, not macro. Speciation doesn't occur. Changes in frequency of alleles does.

If by all you mean no, then sure. However, regardless of whether there is a genetic component or not, the fact remains they act on their dispositions. People can have tendencies to kill, drink alcohol, or whatever. Doesn't mean they act on them.
Killing affects other people, gay sex doesn't. Does my sodomy somehow kill you? Does it affect you in any concievable way? Then why should you care what I do?

Also: Drinking alcohol is legal and people act on it all the time. I'm kind of wondering where that came from.

Also: Science! (http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/timt/papers/twin_studies/)

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases).

And things that evolve aren't organic?
Go take a chemistry course, you just sound funny now. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Some of those compounds include amino acids (among other things) the building blocks of life. Since we are carbon based life forms that have amino acids we are organic.

Go take a chemistry course, you just sound funny now. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Some of those compounds include amino acids (among other things) the building blocks of life. Since we are carbon based life forms that have amino acids we are organic.
Good, you just stated my point. Now, since we can reproduce amino acids and organic compounds, why can't we reproduce evolution?

Killing affects other people, gay sex doesn't. Does my sodomy somehow kill you? Does it affect you in any concievable way? Then why should you care what I do?

Also: Drinking alcohol is legal and people act on it all the time. I'm kind of wondering where that came from.

Also: Science! (http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/timt/papers/twin_studies/)
I don't think my kids should be told sodomy is good is all. Go have all the gay sex or S&M you want. Just don't put it in our schools.

People with similar genomes have similar tendencies. Doesn't mean a gay gene exists.

But when gravity is taught, it's taught with the cavaet that it isn't proven.
As is evolution...it's just that the overwhelming amount of evidence says that evolution occured.

Good, you just stated my point. Now, since we can reproduce amino acids and organic compounds, why can't we reproduce evolution?
Because we can make amino acids relatively quickly. We can't make a pig from algae very quickly. If you plan on living 3 billion years, watch what happens I think you will be pleasantly suprised. BTW there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. The same changes that improve our immune system made turtles grow shells, one just looks slightly more dramatic.

As is evolution...it's just that the overwhelming amount of evidence says that evolution occured.
Evolution generally isn't taught that it's irreproducible with holes in the theory.

Because we can make amino acids relatively quickly. We can't make a pig from algae very quickly. If you plan on living 3 billion years, watch what happens I think you will be pleasantly suprised. BTW there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. The same changes that improve our immune system made turtles grow shells, one just looks slightly more dramatic.
Microevolution is just shuffling around genes. Not making new ones. Try as you might, no random pairing of genes will ever create an algae with a leg.

Good, you just stated my point. Now, since we can reproduce amino acids and organic compounds, why can't we reproduce evolution?

Scientists have produce entirely new species of fly by irradiating homeobox genes.

Good, you just stated my point. Now, since we can reproduce amino acids and organic compounds, why can't we reproduce evolution?
Because you need live things to do it, and live things take quite a bit of time to adapt. However, we have seen evolution in bacteria, such as picking up resistances to antibiotics and the digesting of plastics, along with the start of speciation in labs (tests done with populations separated with different types of food sources showed that they tended to mate with their own population even when placed back in an environment with both types of food and flies)

Because you need live things to do it, and live things take quite a bit of time to adapt. However, we have seen evolution in bacteria, such as picking up resistances to antibiotics and the digesting of plastics, along with the start of speciation in labs (tests done with populations separated with different types of food sources showed that they tended to mate with their own population even when placed back in an environment with both types of food and flies)
Those are not new genes. They are old genes that are now being expressed in greater numbers.

I don't think my kids should be told sodomy is good is all. Go have all the gay sex or S&M you want. Just don't put it in our schools.

People with similar genomes have similar tendencies. Doesn't mean a gay gene exists.
Ummm thats exactly what it means. Well not a "gay gene" precisely but a genetic component to homosexuality. Thats called correlation, and in this case its incredibly high. (Yes 50% is incredibly high)

BTW gay sex and S&M isn't taught in schools. At most they say, "Don't hate someone because they are gay" Thats it. Just accept people for what they are. No, "Go have butt sex kids!" Just, "Gay people are people too"

Good, you just stated my point. Now, since we can reproduce amino acids and organic compounds, why can't we reproduce evolution?

Because evolution is a gradual process that deals with living things. Not a final product. With oil and such, we can simply increase the pressure a zillion times greater than is natural (or so I'd guess it goes.)

We can't do that to a living thing, because we'd kill it.

We CAN observe evolution on a limited scale, with fruit flies and the like.
We CAN simulate a basic evolutionary process on a computer and see that it comes up with stuff.
We CAN observe speciation events, occasionally. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html gives a nice list )
We CAN look at the fossil record and see a wide variety of forms that fall into a nested heirarchical organization.

And we CAN cause plants and animals to change greatly through artificial selection - look at the great variety among dogs, or look at the ridiculously large berries that farmers now grow, and so on.

Ummm thats exactly what it means. Well not a "gay gene" precisely but a genetic component to homosexuality. Thats called correlation, and in this case its incredibly high. (Yes 50% is incredibly high)

BTW gay sex and S&M isn't taught in schools. At most they say, "Don't hate someone because they are gay" Thats it. Just accept people for what they are. No, "Go have butt sex kids!" Just, "Gay people are people too"
What's the R factor of the correlation?

Children should be taught not to hate people. They should not be taught to accept things as right.

And we CAN cause plants and animals to change greatly through artificial selection - look at the great variety among dogs, or look at the ridiculously large berries that farmers now grow, and so on.
All dogs are the same species, Canis familiaris.

Those are not new genes. They are old genes that are now being expressed in greater numbers.

Have you heard of the Nylon bug? That bacterium that was found to have mutated so it can metabolize nylon, and nylon only.

Have you heard of the Nylon bug? That bacterium that was found to have mutated so it can metabolize nylon, and nylon only.
Not a new species, just a different allele. It can reproduce with its parent organism.

What's the R factor of the correlation?

Children should be taught not to hate people. They should not be taught to accept things as right.
r = .5179 according to my calculations, but its pretty rough. I don't have all the numbers.

BTW Kids aren't taught that things are right, simply that they are and will continue to be. They should accept the fact that gay people exist, and will continue to exist.

Disapproving of homosexuality is a pretty fruitless venture. Its going to go on whether you like it or not, nothing you do will stop it.

Those are not new genes. They are old genes that are now being expressed in greater numbers.
How do you have genes for something that did not exist ten or twenty years ago (aids fighting drugs) or plastics, of which nothing of the sort existed until little more then 100 years ago?

r = .5179 according to my calculations, but its pretty rough. I don't have all the numbers.
.5179 is not a good correlation factor.

Not a new species, just a different allele. It can reproduce with its parent organism.
Bacteria don't follow the biological species definition, as they are asexual...in fact, sexual conjugation can happen between members of different 'species', throwing that completely out the window.

How do you have genes for something that did not exist ten or twenty years ago (aids fighting drugs) or plastics, of which nothing of the sort existed until little more then 100 years ago?
ID?

Bacteria don't follow the biological species definition, as they are asexual...
Not all reproduce by binary fission, some sex can go on. But I see your point.

ID?
Prove it.

Prove it.
Prove evolution.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS NOT A LAW...READ UP ON YOUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE YOU POST...THAT GOES FOR EVERYONE

Separation of church and state is inherent in the Establishment Clause.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson

"Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." - James Madison

Prove evolution.
I did. I showed you how an allele can form in an environment that didn't exist before, and how that species can move into a previously unexploited niche, which will then lead to differentiation between that and the parent species, eventually leading to a new species. Evolution.

The program should be switched to an after school or field trip type activity, where only the kids that want to go can go. This avoids all forms of critiscism and settles the case with a nice compromise to make both sides win. Atheist parents don't need to worry about their kids getting brainwashed and wasting time, and Christian parents can have their kids attend public school and learn the Christian way.

I did. I showed you how an allele can form in an environment that didn't exist before, and how that species can move into a previously unexploited niche, which will then lead to differentiation between that and the parent species, eventually leading to a new species. Evolution.
You haven't proven that new species arise. You've proven that genes change.

You haven't proven that new species arise. You've proven that genes change.
It's called an extrapolation. If genes change and the species moves to a new area away from the parent species, genetic drift will evenutally cause them to form two new species.

.5179 is not a good correlation factor.
oh sorry thats the correlation coeffcient

It's called an extrapolation. If genes change and the species moves to a new area away from the parent species, genetic drift will evenutally cause them to form two new species.
It's called assumption.

You have to indoctrinate people when they are young, lest you risk the horrible possibility of them thinking for themselves.

It's called assumption.
Its called a scientific theory that all current evidence indicates is true, which is much more than can be said for creationism.

OK Prove creationism.

Its called a scientific theory that all current evidence indicates is true, which is much more than can be said for creationism.

OK Prove creationism.
Creatationism explains the source of the original matter, which science can't explain, the source, of gravity, which science can't explain, the source of species, which science can explain but can't prove, among other positive points. However, if you'll notice I never said take evolution out of the curriculum. Just to not exclude its flaws.

Creatationism explains the source of the original matter, which science can't explain, the source, of gravity, which science can't explain, the source of species, which science can explain but can't prove, among other positive points. However, if you'll notice I never said take evolution out of the curriculum. Just to not exclude its flaws.
What you said proves nothing.

Evolution's flaws are included, just usually not in a highschool level course. Go into a higher level college biology course and I'm sure you'll get as many as you can handle. Including them in a course that is only intended to give a basic understanding of the material is a little self defeating.

The program should be switched to an after school or field trip type activity, where only the kids that want to go can go. This avoids all forms of critiscism and settles the case with a nice compromise to make both sides win. Atheist parents don't need to worry about their kids getting brainwashed and wasting time, and Christian parents can have their kids attend public school and learn the Christian way.
See the problem is that having prayer, or bible study, or whatever as a requirement forces anybody who doesn't wish to partake to single themselves out as a nonbeliever, or what's worse, an atheist. My own school is fairly tolerant, but many schools are not. So the kid has two choices: Sit through a bunch of stuff that offends him, or leave, and single himself out. and then this happens.
Christian kid: Hey, I saw you duck out of the bible study class. You got a problem with God?
Atheist kid: Well... I am kinda skeptic-
Christian kid: Shut up! *Beats the living shit out of the atheist kid, possibly accompanied by a gang of his freinds.*
Christian kid: Now maybe you'll think twice before thinking for yourself!

Also, another thing that isn't adressed is the fact that multiple divisions perscribe to christianity. A catholic kid might be annoyed by a protestant prayer.

You can pray in school, aloud, if you so wish. You can wear a cross, read a bible, whatever. And my pagan freind can say her incantations and read her book of shadows, and I can read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and pray to Douglas Adams to reveal to me the mathematical truths I need in order to pass my trig final. What you cannot do in school is this:
A teacher may not read aloud from the book of any religion in class or ask the students to join them in prayer, or pressure a student to join their religion.
A student may not ask the class to join them in prayer, beyond a "moment of silence."
A school may not institute a required bible study course.
Some schools have this impression that no religion is allowed on school grounds. This is blatantly untrue.
look to the ACLU religious liberties in schools page for more information.
ACLU Religious liberties (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=13151&c=162)


Creatationism explains the source of the original matter, which science can't explain, the source, of gravity, which science can't explain, the source of species, which science can explain but can't prove, among other positive points. However, if you'll notice I never said take evolution out of the curriculum. Just to not exclude its flaws.
I can say right now that all things, gravity, species, everything, occurred when a cosmic turtle belched, and all of creation was formed out of a bubble that came from the turtle's mouth. Now that explains everything too. It just doesn't have any basis in fact whatsoever.
Science isn't about explaining the whys or the sources of existence, it's about explaining the hows or properties of existence. Of course science can't explain something like "What made gravity?" Because science cannot test it. However, stating something in a book is hardly what could be considered solid evidence.

Well, the town likes it, which is quite clear, since parents continue to send their kids to the class.

I personaly think the whole religion obsession is bloody stupid.
Anyway, perhaps the REASON they arent taking the kids to other religious establishments is because there ARENT any, or because all the kids are Christain.
So, its simple:
If there are Muslims, send them to a Mosque
If there are Jews, send them to a Synagouge
If there are Buddhists, send them to a small patch of lawn to meditate
If there are Hindu kids, send them to whatever it is Hindu people worship in
If there are Zoroastians, light a fire.

You cant be equal with people who arent there, I think that we shouldnt be deabting this without some demographics of the area ;)

And we can send the atheists to a public library. :p

bump