Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom
No.

I think a “comparative religion” class or even a “Bible” class would be perfectly acceptable. And in either one it should be pointed out that creationism is a minority view among religions and among adherents to the Bible.

But creationism AS science, or instead of science is absolutely unacceptable.

313 posted on 02/21/2009 12:35:24 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream

Spot on.


315 posted on 02/21/2009 12:37:41 PM PST by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream; metmom; YHAOS

But creationism AS science, or instead of science is absolutely unacceptable.


For no other reason than allmendream (and his his ilk) says so.

Because we’ve been through all the thoroughly debunked:

“it’s not science”

“it’s religion”

“doesn’t meet this or doesn’t meet that”

AND all his strawmen have been knocked down more than sufficiently.

and any and all other insufficent reasons he’s created to date.

It logically doesn’t follow to argue that you’re a Christian and then exclaim things like “God doesn’t belong in any part of His creation” because of your inseucrities.

It’s certainly not conservative to side with the NEA on silencing Christians to prevent them from teaching how they see fit their own children, and I would argue not American.

And it makes people wonder, what’s next? Should we from this point forward demand that Christianity now somehow be sterlized of science also?

No more scientific studies or inquiries into studying prayer for instance?

What’s next, history can’t be infected by God either?

Where does liberal PC nonsense truly end?


393 posted on 02/22/2009 4:42:16 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream; tpanther
But creationism AS science, or instead of science is absolutely unacceptable.

I never said *as science* nor *instead of* science.

Read the question again. It said.....“Would you support the opt out option for students in the public schools in regards to teaching creation instead of an outright ban on teaching creation in science classes? One that would allow creation to be taught along with evolution but not requiring that children attend?”

So your answer is *No*, you would not favor an opt out option for people who don't want their kids to hear about creation in school. That kind of mentality is why we have expensive lawsuits in schools. People just aren't willing to be reasonable.

And as far as the *teach it in religion class* tidbit that's tossed the way of creationists, we all know that that's not going to happen, because then the next cry is *teaching religion in schools*. The one school that tried it in California some years back got shredded by the very evos that throw that out as an option. IOW, it's never going to happen.

399 posted on 02/22/2009 6:20:02 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson