A Victory...
-
thealj wrote:
It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system.
First you define ID as a fundamentally religious concept and than you say forcing it out of school is not forcing religion out. I think that is an intellectually indefensible position.
thealj wrote:
what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body?
The argument that no government body has ever been granted the constitutional authority to do any such thing. The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
thealj wrote:
You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Yeah, I think that is a nightmare otherwise known as Jefferonian Democracy. I'm sure the concept is a great source of fear for the Marxist among us.
thealj wrote:
Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
So the courts used this issue as an excuse to silence those with whom they disagree. Thanks for reminding my why I am a conservative. With any luck this will finally get to the Supreme Court and the new Justices will make sure this psycho decision is overturned. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:33 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
thealj wrote:
The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
...by forcing religion from school. In any case, where did the courts acquire any mandate to involve itself with educational curriculum? Where is that at in the constitution? For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
thealj wrote:
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
So what? That is a very secular world view, and I embrace it fervently. But, how does "separation of church and state" become "joined at the hip secularism and state"? Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all - it has become overtly anti-religious and is therefore in violation of separation of church and state. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
Congress is granted broad and sweeping Constitutional powers in two areas: 1) provide for the common defense, 2) promote the general welfare. Education is merely one example where Congress has chosen to promote the general welfare.
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
At least you're admitting that ID constitutes exercise of religion rather than a legitimate scientific theory... In any case, it would be establishing a religion because, as much as they might try to scrub it clean of overt references to Christianity, ID is still being pushed as a part of the Christian belief system. Requiring a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Satanist, Jedi, atheist -- whatever -- to learn Christian mythology as part of a science curriculum in a public school would certainly send the message that, to our government, Christian beliefs are held equal to scientific theory. I think this might be considered state-sponsorship of a religion, if not a specific denomination. All the sane among us are asking -- a group, incidentally, that includes a significant percentage of the devoutly religious, as well as my fellow raving, foaming-at-the-mouth secularist, Marxist, leftist (did I leave any "-ist"s out?) bastards -- is that our public school science teachers be allowed to actually teach science, and that the teaching of religion is left to parents, churches, and private schools. In my opinion, that is the free exercise that our constitution guarantees.
-
...for rational thinking and science. A defeat of stupidity. Finally a sound decision for the future of the U.S. and it's population. A court in the US has ruled against the teaching in schools of the theory of "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian evolution. Article[^]. The CNN article (here[^]) is even better. It highlights the lies, deceit and deception used by the religious advocates in order to try and ram this crap into the educational system. Not very Christian behaviour, I may add...tsk tsk...
*** Sorry I posted this message on the wrong message board *** Finally, an intelligent judge banned "Intelligent Design" from being allowed in the public schools. All Intelligent Design does is say: "I don't know how evolution happened and I am to feeble to understand such complicated things so it must be magic". Horrible, I thought we were past explaning things with mystical refrences. Maybe kids growing up today will have a fighting chance if the government dosn't fill there heads with mystical tall tales and fables. Matthew Hazlett
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
I don't know if I would say 'moritified', but I am certainly very much opposed to it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
At least you're admitting that ID constitutes exercise of religion rather than a legitimate scientific theory... In any case, it would be establishing a religion because, as much as they might try to scrub it clean of overt references to Christianity, ID is still being pushed as a part of the Christian belief system. Requiring a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Satanist, Jedi, atheist -- whatever -- to learn Christian mythology as part of a science curriculum in a public school would certainly send the message that, to our government, Christian beliefs are held equal to scientific theory. I think this might be considered state-sponsorship of a religion, if not a specific denomination. All the sane among us are asking -- a group, incidentally, that includes a significant percentage of the devoutly religious, as well as my fellow raving, foaming-at-the-mouth secularist, Marxist, leftist (did I leave any "-ist"s out?) bastards -- is that our public school science teachers be allowed to actually teach science, and that the teaching of religion is left to parents, churches, and private schools. In my opinion, that is the free exercise that our constitution guarantees.
All of which I agree with completely - until we get to the part that, therefore, the court is mandated to force my beliefs on christians rather than forcing theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote:
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class.
I agree completely, I just don't understand how doing so in any way represents the federal government establishing a religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Given:
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion.
and
Darth Stanious wrote:
it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent
And taking into account
The first amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
What exactly is your point? -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
First, when you quote the establishment clause could you please quote the entire thing - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - that part is just as important.
jasontg wrote:
What exactly is your point?
The point is should the power to force us to pay taxes be construed as the power to coerce standards of behavior from us? First, the government takes our money away from us, and than says that because it took our money that therefore we can't have prayer in shcool. Thats actually pretty damned incredible. If we were not forced to pay taxes would it be ok to have prayers in school? If so, why isn't that an argument not to force us to pay taxes rather than allowing for state sanctioned defintions of religious practice? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to, but encouraging state governments not to establish official religions (as the constitution clearly allows). Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
It implies no such thing and I challenge you to show how! It only states that Congress (the federal body that establishes laws on a federal level) may not specifically pass a law establishing a religion. That means congress cannot say that Christianity (or atheism) is the official religion of the nation. Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools. It must remain neutral and is up to the public. It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one. It only says that the congress can't. This is a right (by the 10th amendment) specifically given to the state and local governments to manage. The whole "separations" clause is just made up by atheists trying to shove their religion down everybodys' throats via tyrannical means.
espeir wrote:
Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
espeir wrote:
Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools.
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you? As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here[^].
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to, but encouraging state governments not to establish official religions (as the constitution clearly allows). Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
It implies no such thing and I challenge you to show how! It only states that Congress (the federal body that establishes laws on a federal level) may not specifically pass a law establishing a religion. That means congress cannot say that Christianity (or atheism) is the official religion of the nation. Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools. It must remain neutral and is up to the public. It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one. It only says that the congress can't. This is a right (by the 10th amendment) specifically given to the state and local governments to manage. The whole "separations" clause is just made up by atheists trying to shove their religion down everybodys' throats via tyrannical means.
espeir wrote:
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to,
Obscure? Try googling for it. Also it's not taken out of context. He used that argument to prevent the declaration of a holiday from a religous source.
espeir wrote:
Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state
Be careful. You're coming close to changing your argument in mid stroke. Previously you've left the word "absolute" off of your argument. If there were an absolute separation of church and state how could there even be laws passed to ban such interactions.
espeir wrote:
And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Once again because you changed your argument. I've provided a reliable and acknowledged source referring to the separation of churh and state (minus the absolute part you added later).
espeir wrote:
It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one.
This is all true up until the 14th Amendment. After the passage of the 14th amendment you can sue based upon state governments violating the above said passages. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
espeir wrote:
Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
espeir wrote:
Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools.
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you? As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here[^].
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you?
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here.
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
-
All of which I agree with completely - until we get to the part that, therefore, the court is mandated to force my beliefs on christians rather than forcing theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
The court is not forcing any beliefs on Christians. They are supporting the teaching of facts, and a scientific theory supported by these facts, as part of a science curriculum. The standards for acceptance of a scientific theory are entirely different that that of a religious belief (I think it was The Onion that did the "Theory of Gravity vs Intelligent Falling" story); and, when all is said and done, some Christians, like their brethren in the Flat Earth Society, can choose to ignore the scientific evidence. Feynman said, "religion is based on a culture of faith; science is based on a culture of doubt." The theory of evolution can be falsified, and anyone with the inclination and ability is encouraged to do so. ID cannot. Evolution can gain supporting evidence; short of bolts of lightning chiseling words into stone tablets proclaiming it to be the truth, ID cannot. "Science can't explain it, therefore it must be God/Magic/Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not display a standard of reason that would be accepted by any recognized scientific body. Philosophical body, maybe, but not scientific. ID belongs in comparative religion or philosophy class, not science.
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
Congress is granted broad and sweeping Constitutional powers in two areas: 1) provide for the common defense, 2) promote the general welfare. Education is merely one example where Congress has chosen to promote the general welfare.
But how does promoting the general welfare translate into a state power to define curriclum in public schools to promote one specific world view versus another? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
The court is not forcing any beliefs on Christians. They are supporting the teaching of facts, and a scientific theory supported by these facts, as part of a science curriculum. The standards for acceptance of a scientific theory are entirely different that that of a religious belief (I think it was The Onion that did the "Theory of Gravity vs Intelligent Falling" story); and, when all is said and done, some Christians, like their brethren in the Flat Earth Society, can choose to ignore the scientific evidence. Feynman said, "religion is based on a culture of faith; science is based on a culture of doubt." The theory of evolution can be falsified, and anyone with the inclination and ability is encouraged to do so. ID cannot. Evolution can gain supporting evidence; short of bolts of lightning chiseling words into stone tablets proclaiming it to be the truth, ID cannot. "Science can't explain it, therefore it must be God/Magic/Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not display a standard of reason that would be accepted by any recognized scientific body. Philosophical body, maybe, but not scientific. ID belongs in comparative religion or philosophy class, not science.
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs). Those are issues that should be worked out amoung us - we the people - without any agency of the federal government intervening to influence one POV rather than another. Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:05 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
...for rational thinking and science. A defeat of stupidity. Finally a sound decision for the future of the U.S. and it's population. A court in the US has ruled against the teaching in schools of the theory of "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian evolution. Article[^]. The CNN article (here[^]) is even better. It highlights the lies, deceit and deception used by the religious advocates in order to try and ram this crap into the educational system. Not very Christian behaviour, I may add...tsk tsk...
A great ruling, about the best bit from the judge's summing up has to be:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Especially given the response from the discovery institute :) :
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.
Of course, they will be back. But hopefully this ruling has exposed them for the distinctly unchristian characters that they are, unless of course I am mistaken in my belief that Christianity discorages lying.
-
How is this rational thinking?? Science is DESIGNED to be challenged. There are SUPPOSED to be alternate theories presented to challenge existing theories. In Georgia a court ruled that stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" in textbooks is unconstitutional! IT IS A THEORY (one not based on the scientific method, by the way)! This is madness and science has been usurped by religios nutbacks who have made science into an irrational religion! Go back in time 103 years from now. Physics was defined by Newtonian theories which had been so thoroughly tested that they had been accepted as fact. Well it turns out that Newton was wrong and that his theories were merely an approximation of reality. If those theories were not allowed to be challenged by Einstin in the same manner as reactionary evolutionists behave, scientific progress would have been thwarted. This is absolutely religious fanatical behavior on the part of American scientists. I'm absolutely amazed.
Bullshit. ID is a theory pulled from the bible. It should be taught in bible school, and not in science classes, because it's not a science. Science is based on empirical results from observations and experiments. ID is at the very core based on faith, which is by definition not science.
ID is not even in the same league as science, and should therefore not be treated as such. If you want your kids to learn ID, then send them to bible school, or wherever ID is the hottest thing since sliced bread.
-- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -
A great ruling, about the best bit from the judge's summing up has to be:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Especially given the response from the discovery institute :) :
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.
Of course, they will be back. But hopefully this ruling has exposed them for the distinctly unchristian characters that they are, unless of course I am mistaken in my belief that Christianity discorages lying.
Actually this is yet another perfect example of how the left has managed to defeat the concept of separation of church and state in order to use the state to promote its own overtly anti-religious agenda. It is the Secularist, not the religious, who are successfully using the state to force their moral world view upon all of us. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
espeir wrote:
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to,
Obscure? Try googling for it. Also it's not taken out of context. He used that argument to prevent the declaration of a holiday from a religous source.
espeir wrote:
Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state
Be careful. You're coming close to changing your argument in mid stroke. Previously you've left the word "absolute" off of your argument. If there were an absolute separation of church and state how could there even be laws passed to ban such interactions.
espeir wrote:
And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Once again because you changed your argument. I've provided a reliable and acknowledged source referring to the separation of churh and state (minus the absolute part you added later).
espeir wrote:
It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one.
This is all true up until the 14th Amendment. After the passage of the 14th amendment you can sue based upon state governments violating the above said passages. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
This is all true up until the 14th Amendment. After the passage of the 14th amendment you can sue based upon state governments violating the above said passages.
Sadly true. Modern interpretations of the 14th Amendment have, in fact, completely turned the original constitution on its head by providing a rationale for all power to flow up to the federal government from the people rather than down from the fedral government to the people as the founders intended. Which is why we currenlty live in a judicial dictatorship. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:44 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you?
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here.
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
espeir wrote:
After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion.
As far as I can tell the private schools have
- More stuck up kids
- Better and more expensive drugs
- Nicer cars from mommy and daddy
HINT> This is not actually an argument. It's comic relief Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/ -- modified at 17:45 Tuesday 20th December, 2005