The point wasn't that the kids legally had the right to do it. It was that it isn't happening. You didn't provide any examples of schools that offer classes like that where creation is actually addressed.
Saying that it is possible to happen in a philosophy or comparative religion class is not the same as providing examples of where it actually does happen.
There was never any political action taken to insert creation in to public schools,
Finish the quote please....
It was.....There was never any political action taken to insert creation in to public schools, but rather political action taken to keep it from being forced out.
Creation was in the education of Americans for centuries before the lawsuits forced it out. It's not like creation is being introduced into schools as if it had never been there before. It is not introducing something new. Those political actions were in response to the already taken actions of creation being forced out. The parents who pay taxes to have their own children educated in those schools want creation BACK IN the schools. Taking action to restore what was previously in existence is not the same as introducing something new.
In Georgia, the school board mandated those stickers.
The sticker said: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." Which by no means is introducing religion or creation into schools, but merely making a statement about what a theory is. How you can equate that with introducing creation into schools is beyond me.
The school board in Dover mandated the addition of intelligent design to the curriculum. School boards are political bodies, and those were political actions.
Which is not creationism.
Sorry--didn't know I needed examples. I won't bother to list any, but I can say that a simple search for "high school comparative religion class" has turned up a lot of examples. Including one case where a school board wanted to add a Bible study class, but when the state told them it was too Christian in approach and suggested a comparative religion class instead, rejected the idea because "If they don't want God in our schools, then we're not going to have Gandhi in our schools!" I think that gets at the heart of the problem: people want their religion taught in school, but not on an equal footing with the other ones.
Creation was in the education of Americans for centuries before the lawsuits forced it out.
First, I'd like to see some support for the fact that in the last century, science classes routinely presented 6-day creation as the explanation for how the world got here. My 1950s education--in Catholic school, no less--sure didn't.
Second, I don't think what was taught in science class centuries ago should be the yardstick for what's taught today.
Which by no means is introducing religion or creation into schools, but merely making a statement about what a theory is. How you can equate that with introducing creation into schools is beyond me.
How you can continue to disingenuously pretend that creationists weren't behind those stickers is beyond me. It was a religiously motivated attempt to single out and try to weaken the teaching of evolution.
Which is not creationism.
You'd have to ask the cdesign proponentists about that.