[betty boop]

...science has usurped the role of religion by claiming to have answers about our origins and the meaning and direction of our lives, by allowing its theories and processes to be hijacked by people who use those theories to shape a worldview that is diametrically opposed to beliefs about and in God.... If we want our children to be instructed in the truth, we now have to do it at home or private schools. We'll see how long the lefties and evos and elitists will allow that to go on.

Yep. There's the rub. I hate to say it, but it seems clear enough that there are at least a few people at FR who would like to give a monopoly to the "evo" side of the debate, at least as far as educating (indoctrinating) our children is concerned. I wonder how these people square that imperative with the First Amendment....

V3, thank you so much for your insightful and thought-provoking posts. Please check out #3416 if you have the time and interest?

[tpaine]

"I hate to say it, but it seems clear enough that there are at least a few people at FR who would like to give a monopoly to the "evo" side of the debate, at least as far as educating (indoctrinating) our children is concerned. I wonder how these people square that imperative with the First Amendment...." -BB-


So Betty, -- you reject the conclusion below?


--- "the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group" ---
---- "said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed"


-- To me, it is fairly obvious that Christian groups are the ones trying to 'indoctrinate kids into religion'.
And, --- that the state is simply obliged to 'make no law respecting' any establishments of religions.

[atlaw]

"I hate to say it, but it seems clear enough that there are at least a few people at FR who would like to give a monopoly to the "evo" side of the debate, at least as far as educating (indoctrinating) our children is concerned. I wonder how these people square that imperative with the First Amendment...."

Here's that old "let the children decide" argument again. I really don't understand the fascination with this argument. It just seems so liberal and wishy-washy. On the one hand, there seems to be a deep desire amongst the anti-evolutionists to proclaim fundamental truths and absolutes of right, wrong, correct, and incorrect (frankly, something I find rather appealing), but on the other hand there is a contradictory tendency to pull out the liberal chestnut of "one opinion is as good as another" when it comes to teaching science and interpreting scientific evidence.

Isn't it really your opinion that you "would like to give a monopoly to the ["crevo"] side of the debate?" Or do you really think that the evidence is open to just any old interpretation and that the "children" should decide what is true and not true?