Replies

The argument that religion must not be taught in science classes is nonsense. The courts have ruled, in the first place, that religion cannot be taught in the schools at all, unless it is somebody else's religion, like Islam or Aztec human sacrifice. The present decision which the Darwinists are all celebrating is based on the principle that no Christianity is allowed in the schools at all, not even on the football field.

For a new judge to come along and rule that the framers never intended for that little mention of God during a sports EXTRACURRICULAR activity was not even remotely close to breeching the establishment clause would have the atheists, liberals and ACLU in an uproar. They might have to start eating the words the spew on crying "activist judge, cause you know it would be them at that point.

I'm not familiar with this - please point to where the courts ruled that religion can't be taught at all. I've seen information about religion in history classes, philosophy classes, and comparative religion class. I never took a Bible as Literature class, but they certainly exist.

The courts have ruled that religion can't be taught as science, and that religion can't be in public schools in such a way that the school appears to favor a religion. Teaching comparative relgion is fine.

I think you might be wrong on that. Like the poster said, in some districts no mention of God can even be made on the football field. The more I think about it, the more court cases I remember where a validectorian can't even share a brief mention in his/her speech outside of the learning enviroment itself.

I think it is all far beyond the ACLU wanting to win this "for the children" and more about their ulterior motives in wanting to tear down institutions that have helped keep families together and helped the community without government through the years all while fattening their own coffers.

For the record, I have never read the ID book. I wasn't behind the Dover School Board per se. But I don't think the framers ever intended for a school system (which they never invisioned would be forced upon the people)to not some day be able to discuss whatever the hell it damn well pleases given the wishes of the parents in a given locality or to utter one or two simple sentences even without the thought and truth police going apeshit (pardon the pun).

Forget about the ID book and Dover. The new Scopes Monkey trials are going to involve teachers saying a few simple little sentences on their own like: "Keep an open mind, this is one theory, there might be complimenting or other explanations." But that seems terrifying to some. I don't get it. I understand, Dover SB's approach was underhanded. But I still don't get the threat.

I don't think only "social conservatives" as the article states are the only ones railing over "activist" judges. But as a rule they do, because outside of this one issue (which has become so emotionally charged and polarizing on this forum) the judiciary tends to get much more involved in shooting down things like voter initiatives when the legislation in question grates against the liberal movement. They are much more activist in nature given my understanding of newspaper accounts of court rulings over the years.