Anthm1

Exaggeration of atheism? Much.

And complete generalisation and fabrication of claims regarding "most Christians" and "the Left".

>> Most Christians don’t accept evolution but do you see them trying to impose a ban on it being taught? No. As usual the Left is showing itself the enemy of freedom of thought and personal belief. <<

Ever heard of turning the other cheek? Guess you must be constipated.

>> In the beginning, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Most famously, 80 years ago, John Scopes was tried for breaking a Tennessee law outlawing such instruction. He was found guilty, and evolution effectively disappeared from the high school curriculum shortly thereafter, though it continued to be taught in universities.

But when university scientists began writing high school biology textbooks in the late 1950s and early '60s, evolution returned to the curriculum, provoking a second outbreak of anti-evolutionism during the '70s and '80s.

Creationism was repackaged as "creation science" in the hope that it would be taught along with evolution.

In the '70s and '80s, at least 26 states tried to legislate equal time for creation science with evolution, bringing the courts back in. The 1982 U.S. district court decision in McLean v. Arkansas— Scopes II — showed that such laws violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by promoting a sectarian religious idea inappropriate for the public school science classrooms. In 1987, the Supreme Court reached the same decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Such decisions doomed creation science in the public schools, but they opened a niche for a repackaging of creationism: "intelligent design" <<

From:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-teach_x.htm

Anthm1, there have been enough misleading apologist tapeloops for one day. You are letting your persecution complex show (again). This really is an unhealthy fetish and only shows how much you have in common with islam - this martyr fixation that underscores you are both just another death cult.

No one wants to ban religion. *Comparitive* religious studies are a damn fine idea - show absurdity without any sophist dirty tricks, threats of hell or promises of heavenly glory. It's *indoctrinational" religious studies we object to. No, I don't have any hope you will ever understand why it is an issue.

Leave our kids alone you bloodsuckers.

BPT
"I’m sure you’ll recover. By the way how did Red Russia turn out? Just curious."

Is that sort of emotive and irrational response the best you can do?

Religion was banned in Russia. We are talking about RI in public secular schools not the banning of Christianity. Are you reading the same article or have decided to throw up an irrelevancy in the hope that it might stick?

But speaking of Russia, it does provide a mindful example of how a government can decide the religion or non-religion of anybody and push that line in schools to children.

Children who will eventually forge their own spiritual path on their own with the influence of their family, their experiences and their Church if that is applicable.

Please explain why you think Imams, priests, pastors and the like should be able to access the school system to preach their religion. School is not the place in my humble opinion other than in a holistic sense and RI is freely available within the Church community. By all means have Rabbis, Imans, priests etal come and give a talk as part of a history or social science curriculum but schools are not appropriate as recruitment centres.

Nick
Thanks for you reasoned thoughts. These discussions are best had without terms like 'militant' being tossed around - you are quite right. Exposing kids to a variety of worldviews is worthy and valuable but not as a regular 'preaching' tool is my only argument. For me anyway, that is for the home other than in the context in attempting to reason with BPT above.

Good article. Congratulations.

Offering voluntary lessons in schools in the difference between good and evil can only be beneficial, given that some of the "lessons" provided in the home environment may not always be conducive to good behaviour and respect for others (persons or belongings).

Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour is not really so different to kids getting lessons from reading Harry Potter, Beatrix Potter or nursery rhymes, but places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world.

Given the range of religious practice within our multicultural society, some introduction in schools to a range of belief and practice should help to engender understanding, reduce intolerance, misunderstanding and bigotry, and provide a better world view.

Education is meant to be well rounded. It can not achieve this without some introduction to religious teachings and the role that such teachings can play in maintaining harmony and respect within cultures and society in general.

Saltpetre

>> Using bible stories to convey mores and norms of acceptable behaviour is not really so different to kids getting lessons from reading Harry Potter, Beatrix Potter or nursery rhymes, but places these lessons more effectively within the context of the real world. <<

Nor is using the philosophical musings of Socrates, Buddha, Ghandi, A C Grayling - the text does NOT have to be from the Christian bible.

Capiche?

so full of hate is that what they teach in SRI? seems to be the Author has demostraighted all the things that us moderates say is happening.