Replies

" . . . they must avoid teaching religious theory . . ."

Well, they don't. And why must creation theory by definition be "religious?" Is it just because so many people who hold to different religions also happen to believe in creation? Please prove to me that creationism must absolutely entail religion.

"Indeed, -- why would anyone want the state to teach religion in public schools?"

Because, in case you haven't noticed, 90% of the general public believes relgion to be a natural part of existence. The general public pays schools to teach from what is commonly understood and observed by mankind. The most common and reasonable assumption to make about existence is that it did not just whip itself up out of nothing.

Public schools can treat of religious subjects with ease, and they do. The teach both evolution and creation as possible viewpoints and let students choose for themselves what to believe. At least public schools that know what education is.

"You do [entrust your children to the state]? Why?"

Because the state has been able to supply teachers who are better quailified than myself to impart the knowledge needed to be citizens who can function to the benefit of themselves and mankind. This authority does not derive from the state, but from myself as a parent, and ultimately my authority and accountability as a parent derives from GOD.

To the extent public schools depart from teaching necessary educational fundamentals I must take issue with their purpose. In fact, whose idea was public school education anyway? Probably some dumbass evolutionist who thought it smart to explain away the obvious to anyone with anything other than a wood block between their ears.

". . . the FF paid political lip service to a 'God' . . .

This is a truly unhealthy assessment of the place of religion in the lives of our forefathers. They were willing to give up their lives for what they believed and wrote, and they understood, plainly and simply, that a government derived from the people must have it's foundation in a higher principle of rights derived from Divine Providence. They also understood that the history of religions and religious persecution did not allow for a government established by the people to favor one religious teaching over another.

And why must creation theory by definition be "religious?"

And after so many posts, we again circle back to the crux of the whole "debate." (fyi, I always put the word, "debate" in quotations because in the real world, there is no debating the facts of evolution...) To date, all creation myths have been religious in nature. Until recently, creationists were pretty forthright about this, but since the late 80's or so, someone somewhere got tricky and began realizing that by cloaking their inherently religious viewpoint in new terms like "creation science" or "intelligent design," they would have a louder voice. BUT, as has been shown time and time again, creation myths ALWAYS come down to 2 things; the infamous, "goddidit" line of thought and what you will surely admit to, faith.

whereas science isn't afraid to show its current inadequacies with comments like, "I don't know," (with regards to say, the beginning of time), religion supposes to know these things with wonderful statements such as, "God made it so." That may be fine for some, but I for one, am a bit more curious. Which is what it all comes down to: The curious versus the incurious, simple as that.

So use a comparative philosophy or religion class. Creation/ID is not science and should therefore not be taught as an alternative. BTW, which creation STORY would you have being taught? What about Hindu, Norse, Greek, or any other of the myriads of creation stories out there?

What make Genesis any better a story than the Norse Mythology?

BTW, I had a friend of mine who used to put on a Viking war helmet (complete with horns) and sing songs to Valhalla when he was going thru his launch checks as a USAF missile launch officer in a Minuteman ICBM launch control center under the prairies of North Dakota.

When it comes to existence and how things came to be the way they are right now, however, there are only TWO possibilities I know of. One of them has been - for reasons unknown to common sense - utterly squelched from the public school system for nearly a century. 2106 -FC-

'Unknown' Fester? We have a tradition, -- separation of church & state. If we must have state supported schools, they must avoid teaching religious theory.

Well, they don't.

Well, they try, -- as they should. That's common sense, fester.

And why must creation theory by definition be "religious?" Is it just because so many people who hold to different religions also happen to believe in creation?

Because creational theory is based on matters of faith? Observable facts point to evolutionary theory.

Please prove to me that creationism must absolutely entail religion.

Not possible to 'prove' , as you well know.

----------------------------

"Indeed, -- why would anyone want the state to teach religion in public schools?"

How ludicrous to believe that even a majority can agree on what is 'commonly understood' in religious matters. - Much less 90%. - Amusing comment.

The most common and reasonable assumption to make about existence is that it did not just whip itself up out of nothing. Public schools can treat of religious subjects with ease, and they do. The teach both evolution and creation as possible viewpoints and let students choose for themselves what to believe. At least public schools that know what education is.

The founders wisely seperated church/state functions. State funded schools must do the same.

-----------------------------

"You do [entrust your children to the state]? Why?"

Because the state has been able to supply teachers who are better quailified than myself to impart the knowledge needed to be citizens who can function to the benefit of themselves and mankind.

You rely on the state to supply better teachers? - good grief.

This authority does not derive from the state, but from myself as a parent, and ultimately my authority and accountability as a parent derives from GOD. To the extent public schools depart from teaching necessary educational fundamentals I must take issue with their purpose. In fact, whose idea was public school education anyway? Probably some dumbass evolutionist who thought it smart to explain away the obvious to anyone with anything other than a wood block between their ears.

Reversing yourself on public/state schools? - A few lines above you defend them.

--------------------------

". . . the FF paid political lip service to a 'God' . .

This is a truly unhealthy assessment of the place of religion in the lives of our forefathers.

Now it's somehow "unhealthy" to see politicans as they really are? Get a grip.

They were willing to give up their lives for what they believed and wrote, and they understood, plainly and simply, that a government derived from the people must have it's foundation in a higher principle of rights derived from Divine Providence.

Your opinion on where rights derive from was NOT shared by all of the FF's, -- nor is now, by your neighbors. Thus, -- religious/state separation, as per the constitution. Try to learn to live with this fact, fester.

They also understood that the history of religions and religious persecution did not allow for a government established by the people to favor one religious teaching over another.

My point exactly. -- Thanks.