[quote]bald eagle wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
lixy wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
jsbrook, can you explain to me why it’d be ok for you to have your children experience no sex education, but math, science etc.?
Or the other way around:
What should be taught at home in contrast to mandatory school education and why?
I would, in fact, prefer a proper sex education class. But I can see this is a sensitive issue that is deeply rooted in moral and religious values in a way that math and science are not.
Depends.
Palin wants creationism taught in science classes.
Oh no! Hide the children lest they be corrupted and ruined forever.
It shouldn’t be taught in science class. There are also many other views of creation, none of them grounded in science. The Massai believe humanity was fashioned by the Creator deity from a single tree or leg which was split into three pieces.
The Mansi believe the spirit of the sky order his brother, the spirit of the lower world, to create humanity. His brother made seven earthy, clay figures and which were quickened by the gods’ sister, Mother Earth.
In Hindu philosophy, the existence of the universe is governed by the Trimurti of Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Sustainer) and Shiva (the Destroyer). The sequence of Avatars of Vishnu-
the Dasavatara (Sanskrit: Dasa�??ten, Avatara�??incarnation) is generally accepted by most Hindus today as correlating well with Darwin’s theory of evolution, the first Avatar generating from the environment of water.
Hindus believe that the universe created from Sound(AUM/OM : ��? ). The sound uttered by every human being at the stage of their birth.
The first elements of Pancha Panchamahabhuta The five elements: Akasha, Vayu, Agni, Ap, and Prithvi (in the same order) constitute the Pancha Mahabhutas (five great elements)). Notably, hindus thus do not see much conflict between creation and evolution.
If creationism should be taught in public school, it should be taught in the context of a comparative religion class. This avoids problems with the establishment clause too. Couldn’t be said that the government was acting to advance a mono-theistic religion.
When Thomas Jefferson talks about our rights coming from our Creator then it is perfectly legitimate to discuss who this is and what that means. Is it not?
Talking about God and that most believe He is the origin of life is not establishing a religion. It is merely reflecting one opinion of where we came from. Evolution certainly can’t be taught as fact so why not present the idea of a Creator? But that means young kids might ask too many questions about God. And we just can’t have that.
The idea that talking about creation in science class violates the establishment clause is ridiculous. If any of the founders were brought back to life is there any doubt what they would say in a science class when asked about the origin of man?
Why don’t some of you guys go back and see what was taught in the schools around 1800.
Somehow I think they knew more about the Constitution and what violates it than any of today’s so called elites.
In America we have no obligation to talk about the Hindus, Massai, or any other group/religion. However, I have no problem letting kids know about their beliefs so that they have a working knowledge of what beliefs are out there.
In case you have forgotten we do have a Christian heritage based on the God of creation with various religions under that common belief.
The Constitution guarantees the right of an individual to come and worship in their own way without interference - it does not guarantee equal time for their beliefs or their deity. And it does not guarantee that they can’t be offended.
[/quote]
Actually the constitution does. Or rather current jurisprudence interpreting the establishment clause does. You are talking about the free exercise clause. The establishment clause prohibits advancement of any one religious viewpoint.
Teaching creationism as one of two valid theories of human existence advances monotheism and more specifically Christianity. And sorry to tell you that there are many other religions in this country. Judaism. Islam. In any case, creationism is certainly not science and is not based on empirical observation.
Personally, I think the current interpretation of separation of church and state goes a bit overboard and is a bit ridculous.
However, under the Lemon test, 1. government action must have a secular legislative purpose, 2. the government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3. the government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
It cannot fail any one of these prongs. Any public school education is considered government action. While the Constitution does not guarantee equal time, only teaching one religious perspective has almost universally been deemed to advance that relgion.
I don’t personally have a probablem with Creationism being taught in school outside the context of a science class beacuse I don’t see it as advancement of religion in any true sense. And it doesn’t lead to concerns about the establishment of a state religion which is what the establishment clause is truly designed to guard against.
Nonetheless, I fail to see how it’s relevant to what public education should be. It is one way of explaining our origins but it is not science and it is a religious belief. Why is this not a proper topic for Sunday school instead? Or Hebrew school? Or the mosque?
Evolution is science. It is not established fact but it is based on empiracal observation (as well as some experimentation). The conclusions drawn can be disputed but it is scientific theory in a way that Creationism is not.
