Separation of Church and State

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

Yuki said:

But Buddy...you make it out to be a compulsory Christian prayer. That was never the case...if you didn't want to pray, you didn't have to, but you still had to have a silent respect for the prayer that was going on. It was called courtesy.

Don't think that's awfully awkard for Atheists, to just sit there while everyone else is praying? Don't you think it's awfully awkard for them to have to sit quietly? What if there was a school instituted prayer to Shiva or Brahman or some other Hindu god? You wouldn't have to pray, of course, but wouldn't you feel sort of awkard just sitting there while everyone else was? Wouldn't it make you sort of angry?

If kids want to pray, that's there bussiness. Someone posted about how kids at there school are told not to pray quietly to themselves, and that is WRONG. They can take there own time out, or sit at lunch with a group of kids who agree to say grace or something before eating.

[Buddy]

Ember said:

Don't think that's awfully awkard for Atheists, to just sit there while everyone else is praying? Don't you think it's awfully awkard for them to have to sit quietly? What if there was a school instituted prayer to Shiva or Brahman or some other Hindu god? You wouldn't have to pray, of course, but wouldn't you feel sort of awkard just sitting there while everyone else was? Wouldn't it make you sort of angry?

That's just what I was thinking, too. I'd feel pretty out of place if two thirds of the rest of the kids in my class were praying, but I wasn't.

[Oily]

KKM said:

Atheism is a belief, like theism. Theism is a belief, but it encompass many, many different religions. Christians, Jews, Muslims, some Wiccans, and probably others I've missed are all monotheists (a type of theist). Most of the ancient civilizations were polytheist (another type of theist): the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Germanic tribes, and many more. Also, you don't have to be religious to be a theist: Ember is a monotheist, from what she's said, and she doesn't consider herself religious. Atheism simply means a lack of belief in God and absolutely nothing more, not even the belief that no God or gods exist. Some atheists are even religious (most Buddhists are atheists; some Unitarians are atheists).

I'm going to quote definitions now

Atheism is defined as belief that there is no God - that no God exists.
Agnosticism is belief that it is impossible for us to know if there is a God or not.

I listened to my parents debating that and they went to the dictionary to sort it out

Similarly, monotheism is belief in one God. Polytheism is belief in many Gods.

I would class atheism as not a religion. If we strip away God (which is the basis for most religions!) then we are left with things like a certain organisation, certain rituals or ceremonies etc etc. Atheism is not any of that. You just have to believe there is no God - the very antithesis of religion, I would say.


I go to a Church of England school, but only because it's good. We have school led prayers - I just sit there, silently. So do a lot of people. Though I get told off for not singing the Christian hymns - I find that offensive. I didn't sing because a) I felt it was disrespectful to that religion to sing something I actively didn't believe in and b) I have the worst singing voice I also have to sit through assemblies - there's always a Bible reference tacked on the end.

I mind quite a bit though, now I think about it. I keep my silence - I have respect for it - but it is compulsory to end a Commemoration at church and a Christmas service and everything. The fact I'm not Christian - so what? I have to put up and shut up and go anyway. You're allowed by the rules "to wear a small religious symbol with permission." No one gets permission anyway Some people wear crosses - fine by the teachers. Then my friend wore her pentacle and got told off, despite her protesting that it was a religious symbol.

Despite all this, it's OK. They have it integrated into the school, but they don't shove it in your face. I think it's again because England is so liberal They just tack on "love one another etc" to the end of an assembly, and I have to mouth words I don't believe in occasionally. But it doesn't bother me too much. It's when they discriminate a bit more.
I go to the school because it's good though - Church of England doesn't really matter.

Oh, and they teach evolution anyway. I've never really had it actively explained, just because it never cropped up on the syllabus, but I think that's just because it's seen as obvious. I'm sure if someone asked not to be taught it, they could leave the room or just miss that lesson

[Stal]

Buddy said:

But if Atheism is a religon, then isn't prayer in school infringing on said religon, much like teaching evolution is infringing on someone elses?

If prayer was compulsory and you had no alternative, no chance to just sit there, then yes it would be infringing. But as long as you have a choice, then your rights are not being infringed upon. Having a prayer set up in school where you can choose to pray or just remain silent is a choice and there is no FORCE of religion on you at all. Simple as that. The Constitution's Freedom of Religion and the fact there shall be no religion forced upon the people by the government of this nation is still adhered to.

You feel uncomfortable while others are praying and you're not? I don't care. I feel uncomfortable all day long in different situations. You have to deal with it. It's life. Life and the constitution don't gaurantee that everyone is going to feel "comfortable" then entire time.

[mushroom]

Yuki said:

If prayer was compulsory and you had no alternative, no chance to just sit there, then yes it would be infringing. But as long as you have a choice, then your rights are not being infringed upon. Having a prayer set up in school where you can choose to pray or just remain silent is a choice and there is no FORCE of religion on you at all. Simple as that. The Constitution's Freedom of Religion and the fact there shall be no religion forced upon the people by the government of this nation is still adhered to.

You feel uncomfortable while others are praying and you're not? I don't care. I feel uncomfortable all day long in different situations. You have to deal with it. It's life. Life and the constitution don't gaurantee that everyone is going to feel "comfortable" then entire time.

But the thing is, if you can allow a prayer with that reasoning, why can't you allow a school-sponsored church ceremony too? I mean, sure, some people are going to be uncomfortable and bored sitting through the rites of a religion they don't believe in, but that's okay--they can just sit there and ignore it, and anyway the Constitution doesn't guarantee that they're going to be comfortable.

Also, the people praying during the school-sponsored prayer aren't going to know if someone decides to sit there silently instead. The people who are praying get a chance to publically declare their beliefs without making a big fuss over it, while those who don't pray can't. The school is repressing the belief of the non-prayers.

And, finally, what's the point? The folks who want to pray have plenty of opportunities to pray individually or, at church or in a prayer group, in groups; they aren't put at a disadvantage if the school doesn't lead a prayer. The folks who don't want to pray are made uncomfortable and put at a disadvantage if the school does lead a prayer. Why go to all the fuss to make some people uncomfortable without significantly improving the lives of others?

Yuki said:

Simple. As religious definitions go in recognition from the US government, they now declare atheism to be a religion. I have the book where I learned of this on reserve at my library, so I'll get further information on it shortly.

I still don't understand what you mean. Does the U.S. government keep a Master List of all "recognized" religions the way the CFA keeps a list of all "recognized" cat breeds? What happens if a religion is recognized by the government? (Does the government grant its adherents special privileges of some sort?)

[Stal]

KKM said:

But the thing is, if you can allow a prayer with that reasoning, why can't you allow a school-sponsored church ceremony too? I mean, sure, some people are going to be uncomfortable and bored sitting through the rites of a religion they don't believe in, but that's okay--they can just sit there and ignore it, and anyway the Constitution doesn't guarantee that they're going to be comfortable.

See, that's where you're wrong. You're not including any alternative activities in there. If other services were offered at the exact same time, than sure it would be fine. But otherwise, forcing that is as bad as forcing children to learn about Evolution without any alternative activity/lesson offered.

Also, the people praying during the school-sponsored prayer aren't going to know if someone decides to sit there silently instead. The people who are praying get a chance to publically declare their beliefs without making a big fuss over it, while those who don't pray can't. The school is repressing the belief of the non-prayers.

So they have to make it known they're not praying? Psh. If I remember right, if you make a scene about anything at school, you're reprimanded. It's not repressing the beliefs of the non-prayers at all, because they can always speak out about it at other times. Maybe talk about it with the principle, speak out to their friends...no repression is going on here. You're just asked to be silent and respectful. Do you make a scene at funerals when they pray and you don't? What about at weddings? At other occasions, such as meals and dinners? No, you're respectful even if you don't agree with it.

And, finally, what's the point? The folks who want to pray have plenty of opportunities to pray individually or, at church or in a prayer group, in groups; they aren't put at a disadvantage if the school doesn't lead a prayer. The folks who don't want to pray are made uncomfortable and put at a disadvantage if the school does lead a prayer. Why go to all the fuss to make some people uncomfortable without significantly improving the lives of others?

I'm only arguing the point because it's been mentioned and I might as well continue on with it. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have deemed setting any time (even 5 minutes) aside for silent prayer, meditation, reflection, or whatever as unconstitutional and that even allowing voluntary prayer to go unchecked by the schools is an establishment of National Religion.

Lovely courts, are they not?

I still don't understand what you mean. Does the U.S. government keep a Master List of all "recognized" religions the way the CFA keeps a list of all "recognized" cat breeds? What happens if a religion is recognized by the government? (Does the government grant its adherents special privileges of some sort?)

For the most part it was to grant First Ammendment Protection to Athiests and "Secular Humanists". I have the book and will be reading about it sometime in the coming week. But yes, there is a type of list of religions set aside by the government. That way no one can just come up with something to try and con and scam people, etc, there's different uses for it.

[mushroom]

Yuki said:

See, that's where you're wrong. You're not including any alternative activities in there. If other services were offered at the exact same time, than sure it would be fine. But otherwise, forcing that is as bad as forcing children to learn about Evolution without any alternative activity/lesson offered.

But you ARE offered an alternate activity--sitting there silently. After all, all you're being forced to do is hear the preacher; you don't have to *listen*. All you're being forced to do in a school-sponsored prayer is hear the prayer; you can alternatively just sit there silently and not listen.

So they have to make it known they're not praying? Psh. If I remember right, if you make a scene about anything at school, you're reprimanded. It's not repressing the beliefs of the non-prayers at all, because they can always speak out about it at other times. Maybe talk about it with the principle, speak out to their friends...no repression is going on here. You're just asked to be silent and respectful.

You don't have to make your opinions known, no, but you should have the option of making your opinions known if other students are also being given the option to make their opinions known. Participating in a public prayer shows that the participants believe in a personal God who is influenced by prayer, whether or not that was the intention of the prayer. In a case where the options are "sit quietly or pray with us," the folks praying aren't going to be able to see if anyone isn't also praying, but the people sitting quietly are going to see all the people praying. That emphasizes all the people praying and ignores those who aren't.

The problem is that there IS no way to balance the scales in that situation. So, the situation should be avoided in the vast majority of circumstances.

Do you make a scene at funerals when they pray and you don't? What about at weddings? At other occasions, such as meals and dinners? No, you're respectful even if you don't agree with it.

There are several fundamental differences between a funeral, wedding, or dinner and a public school. For one thing, you probably know and like the people at the funeral, wedding, or dinner, and, no matter what you think of their religion, you respect THEM enough to forget about it--and if you don't, you can avoid that person from then on. That's not the case in a public school; the religion isn't being presented on behalf of a person or private organization, but on behalf of the school.

Also, funerals, weddings, and dinners are likely to be a one-time event. School-sponsored prayer is likely to be a regular event.

I'm only arguing the point because it's been mentioned and I might as well continue on with it. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have deemed setting any time (even 5 minutes) aside for silent prayer, meditation, reflection, or whatever as unconstitutional and that even allowing voluntary prayer to go unchecked by the schools is an establishment of National Religion.

Lovely courts, are they not?

I'm not questioning why you, individually, are arguing the point. I'm questioning why it's an issue at all. There are a lot of arguments about why school-sponsored prayer is or is not a bad thing, but is there any reason why it's a *good* thing?

It is a violation of first-amendment rights to prevent an individual from praying. Whatever the actions of the courts on the matter, however, they are irrelevant to a discussion about school-sponsored prayer.

For the most part it was to grant First Ammendment Protection to Athiests and "Secular Humanists". I have the book and will be reading about it sometime in the coming week. But yes, there is a type of list of religions set aside by the government. That way no one can just come up with something to try and con and scam people, etc, there's different uses for it.

But the government doesn't have to "recognize" a religion for a person to be protected from discrimination for practicing it. Freedom of religion means you can practice any religion you want without fear of discrimination, not any religion you want off some kind of government list. There are restrictions on religious people the same way there restrictions on regular people; it doesn't matter if a con-artist evangelist is Christian or Zoroastrian, they're going to be punished.

[Stal]

KKM said:

But the government doesn't have to "recognize" a religion for a person to be protected from discrimination for practicing it.

For those that ARE religions, yes. But Atheism and Secular Humanism, by all practical definitions are not religions and so they technically do not fall under protection of the first ammendment.

And so the supreme court had to rule that Atheism's staunch religious beliefs of "non-religion" and their god of "self" or "no-god" should be considered a religion to fall under protection of that category. So Atheism and so forth are now religions as decreed by the supreme court.

And my beef with this is that if they are to be declared religions, then the same rules should then apply to anything that could be considered to be "religious doctrines" of those. That being the beliefs that there's no right-or-wrong, that morality is a question of how you're raised, that we're evolved beings, and so forth all be treated as they are...."religious doctrines of the Atheist Religion" and then banned from schools and so forth just the same.

But no, the government won't ever do that.

[mushroom]

Yuki said:

For those that ARE religions, yes. But Atheism and Secular Humanism, by all practical definitions are not religions and so they technically do not fall under protection of the first ammendment.

And so the supreme court had to rule that Atheism's staunch religious beliefs of "non-religion" and their god of "self" or "no-god" should be considered a religion to fall under protection of that category. So Atheism and so forth are now religions as decreed by the supreme court.

The laws against religious discrimination mean that a person cannot be persecuted for their religious beliefs, whether or not these beliefs lead them to any kind of organized religion. As you yourself stated, atheism is not a religion, but it is a religious belief. If I believe that the Goddess has been reincarnated on Earth in the form of a small pebble, you can't discriminate against me for that, although those beliefs are not part of any religion.

And my beef with this is that if they are to be declared religions, then the same rules should then apply to anything that could be considered to be "religious doctrines" of those. That being the beliefs that there's no right-or-wrong, that morality is a question of how you're raised, that we're evolved beings, and so forth all be treated as they are...."religious doctrines of the Atheist Religion" and then banned from schools and so forth just the same.

But no, the government won't ever do that.

Public schools DON'T teach that there is no right or wrong, or that morality is a question of raising, or that we are evolved beings (in any sense that wouldn't also apply to cows and fish and cyanobacteria). They don't teach anything religious at all; math, science, English, P.E., history...where do you fit in either religion or its deliberate lack?

[Stal]

KKM said:

Public schools DON'T teach that there is no right or wrong, or that morality is a question of raising, or that we are evolved beings (in any sense that wouldn't also apply to cows and fish and cyanobacteria). They don't teach anything religious at all; math, science, English, P.E., history...where do you fit in either religion or its deliberate lack?

KKM...

You're wrong. Maybe your school doesn't, but I can say for a fact that schools do.

When I was in Kindergarten I was taught that I should be following my own sets of beliefs and values, whatever they were. That I didn't have to listen to my parents at all and believe what they taught me. That right and wrong are up for my interpertation. That is the very basis of Moral Relativism right there, and the schools started teaching that to me at the age of six.

And I talk with other teenagers across the country and in my area who have to deal with evolutionistic theory, moral relativism, and gray matters as opposed to black-and-white.

So I don't know where you got the idea that "it doesn't happen." You're wrong on that matter.

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

You feel uncomfortable while others are praying and you're not? I don't care. I feel uncomfortable all day long in different situations. You have to deal with it. It's life. Life and the constitution don't gaurantee that everyone is going to feel "comfortable" then entire time.

Well now, don't be too sympathetic...

It's easy to say that when it's your prayer being said. But what if they were praying to Allah? What, you'd sit silently, day after day, whlie everyone else got on their hands and knees and prayed to a god you don't believe in?

C'mon now, don't BS me - that would annoy you. That would really get to you after a while. And with good reason! It would get to anybody!

And anyways, who's to say learning evolution isn't compulsory? I mean, after all, all you gotta do is memorize the basic concept (it's not that complex), maybe write a report (who says you have to care what you're writing about?) and answer a few questions on some test. You're done. You don't have to believe it, you don't have to accept it. You just have to learn it. Whether you personally buy it as fact or fiction is your business.

I can't help but sense a double-standard here. So, when Ember says that none of the teachers in her school are even allowed to talk with about evolution - not even on a one-on-one private conversation - it's okay, since, presumably, learning this is infringing on certain religous beliefs. But school-led prayer - compulsory or not - somehow doesn't? Students wanting to learn about evolution - whether or not it's "compulsory" - is infringing on religion, but students wanting school-led prayers - whether or not it's "compulsory" - doesn't?

Weird...

Beyond all that, there exists the mere symbolism of it all. By speaking Christian prayers, that's the school's indirect way of acknowledging the Christian faith - by saying "This is the faith we believe in." Imagine that. America, a country infamous for being a "mixing bowl", a "custard" of all faiths, nationalities, and races, excepting an offical - unspoken, sure, but inarguably, offical - religion for it's schools and, in an indirect way, it's government. What does this do to America's credibility? What does this do to the concept that everyone is welcome?

It's compulsory. Okay, so what? You're asking me to "tough up" and deal with it. I don't have to believe it, just respect those who do... kind of like evolution? No one's asking you to believe it, just understand it. And yet, it's harmful to your religion to have that taught in schools - even spoken of as a one-on-one conversation - but it's okay to have prayer. You tell atheists "tough" when it's expressed that it makes them uncomfortable, yet when you say that evolution is infringing on your right to believe what you want - that it makes you... unfomfortable? - it's suddenly okay to have it taken out of the school system, with an "that's how it should be".

I sense a double-standard. If you see something you don't believe in, it must be taken away immediately. If I see something I believe in, "tough".

This is merely an endless cycle. We'll never truely solve the problem. Consider it? We can't have an education system run with total Christian influences, yet we can't totally push out Christianity. How do we solve this? Can it, in fact, be solved?

There needs to be compromise. Maybe, someday, people will finally sit down and try and figure this out like adults, instead of taking it the courts and having case-ruling after case-ruling made - often controdicting the others - that will leave one side heavy-handed; that will leave one side feeling cheated and as if it's not fair.

Maybe someday someone will come up with a way to do it. Heck, maybe it'll even be some of us! But for now, all we can do is continue to debate/argue/fight over who's right or who's wrong.

*sigh* I wonder how much more debate I have left in me?...

[Stal]

Buddy, here's what your sensing as a double standard.

I want it my way, yes. If all things were allowed, if one was to learn about creationism (of any sort) right next to evolution that'd be great. But it doesn't happen that way. What I aim for is an all or nothing take. With the school prayers, I'm not looking for a school-led prayer. I'm looking for a time slot set aside for prayer and so forth. If it makes someone feel uncomfortable, I could care less, because as I've said, life isn't about being comfortable. And since you're not being forced to pray, but simply sit there and do your own thing, that'd be fine.

Now onto the evolution and where the supposed double-standard comes in. You have to learn it. It's not something that you're given a choice on. Your grade hinges upon you learning it (unlike with prayer where it's a little thing you do that has nothing to do with grades). And you can only learn evolution. They can't teach about the Bible and alternate theories of existence. It's not allowed.

And since, as I've all ready stated, it's a "doctrine" of the "Atheist religion", it should be removed as part of the Seperation of Church and State that everyone clamors for. OR they should allow alternate theories to be taught alongside.

I have two viewpoints I argue: The ideal situation (or how I'd like it to be...) and then reality (current state)and if that's the way things are, then this should happen as well (using their own reasoning to further other things that aren't being done). I use both sides of all arguments to argue my points. Most of the time that distinction is clear. Obviously you can't see the distinction this time around, not too surprising considering I have a tendency to say things in ways only I can understand. ;D

As I was saying, it's not a double standard. It's two view points of arguments. Is that clear and understandable enough? I'm not sure if I explained that correctly or not.

As for the adoption of religion, it wouldn't be the official religion of the country. Think of it this way...they could also set up schools with muslim teachings. They could set up public schools with athiest teachings. You would be able to go to a government funded school with faiths being taught. And it wouldn't be imposed on anyone.

And what do you mean what would happen to our nation? Do you forget that that is how our nation was to begin with? That it wasn't until the past 50 years that all religion has been taken out of schools? Our nation was still the great freedom as it is now. Our nation would remain the same...nothing would change, because it wouldn't be a government-imposed religion on the people. The rights would remain the same as before and everything. *laughs* That was a rather weak case, I might say, I mean...you made it sound disasterous, but it would be far from that.

[mushroom]

You consider a lack of religion to be a religion. It's not "teaching atheism" to not teach Christianity. It's just not teaching Christianity. Schools don't teach that God does not exist; they just don't teach that he does.

I'm not sure how you could teach creationism, though:

"Many religions believe that one or more supreme beings created the world."

It's not exactly a well-fleshed-out chapter, but what else is there to say? Either you go into all the different versions, which would take a huge amount of time and definitely not be biology anymore, or you leave it at that.

By the way, some schools teach about the different religions of the world. In some schools the cirriculum includes items like the history and major tenets of Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, etc. You can understand something without agreeing with it.

And, with all due respect, there weren't many civil rights back in the nation's beginnings. It may or may not be related to the stronger religious influences, but you definitely can't compare 1800's "freedom" to 2000's.

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

Now onto the evolution and where the supposed double-standard comes in. You have to learn it. It's not something that you're given a choice on. Your grade hinges upon you learning it (unlike with prayer where it's a little thing you do that has nothing to do with grades). And you can only learn evolution. They can't teach about the Bible and alternate theories of existence. It's not allowed.

Yes, you may have to learn it, but you don't have to believe it. No one's asking you to believe anything - only to understand the concept. In truth, whether or not you believe it shouldn't come into play. Not believeing it doesn't - or at least, shouldn't - disable you from learning it.

And since, as I've all ready stated, it's a "doctrine" of the "Atheist religion", it should be removed as part of the Seperation of Church and State that everyone clamors for. OR they should allow alternate theories to be taught alongside.

Says who? Who says it's a "doctorine" of the "Atheist religion"? It most certainly is not. I'd find it impossible to be such, as there is no "doctorine" of the "Atheist religion". A doctorine of science, maybe, but not of Atheism. Teaching evolution is not teaching atheism - it's simply teaching evolution. They are two seperate entities.

As I was saying, it's not a double standard. It's two view points of arguments. Is that clear and understandable enough? I'm not sure if I explained that correctly or not.

Not really, but okay, I'll take it.

As for the adoption of religion, it wouldn't be the official religion of the country. Think of it this way...they could also set up schools with muslim teachings. They could set up public schools with athiest teachings. You would be able to go to a government funded school with faiths being taught. And it wouldn't be imposed on anyone.

We can't even afford school books for every child. How are we supposed to open schools for every different religion? Furthermore, that would simply be a horrible idea, even if it were possible.

All we'd be doing is seperating people by religion, placing them into classes (not saying these classes would unequal to each other, but if we ever hope to have peace and coordination in this world, we can't be dividing up people by religion).

And what do you mean what would happen to our nation? Do you forget that that is how our nation was to begin with? That it wasn't until the past 50 years that all religion has been taken out of schools? Our nation was still the great freedom as it is now. Our nation would remain the same...nothing would change, because it wouldn't be a government-imposed religion on the people. The rights would remain the same as before and everything. *laughs* That was a rather weak case, I might say, I mean...you made it sound disasterous, but it would be far from that.

I thought the question of whether out nation was born Chrsitian or not was still under debate... anyways, it really doesn't matter if our nation started with Christianity - it was also started by rich white men. But the world has changed. What may have worked 50 years ago don't work now. Our nation may have started out Christian, but it's anything but anymore.

And yes, it would act as an "offical" religion. When we say Christian prayers, that's a way of saying "This is the prayer we choose to say. This is the religion we choose to accept and pray to."

A religion doesn't have to be written down on paper to be considered "offical".

And while we're talking about "doctorines", don't forget about the "doctorine" that America is based on the fact that anyone can come here and be who they want to be. So, does making Chrisitanity the religion that schools pray to really go towards forwarding that doctorine? No, it doesn't.

You don't care that I'm uncomfortable? Well, I don't care if it's voluntary. The school system has picked that as the religion it chooses to pray to over any and all other religions. That is accepting it as the "offical" though alas, "unwritten" religion. That's what bothers me most. That public schools - a place where money, religion, or class should not come into play - are picking one religion over the other.

So Stal, this is you not debating, huh?

[Smiley]

What would be the point of praying in school? More than just forcing religion upon me, it's taking away valuable learning time, not only from me or other non-Christians, but also from the Christians - they could pray at home or church, and they need to learn just as much as anyone else.

There's honestly no point to it, and it will definitely infringe peoples' rights.

About not teaching evolution...

Let's say that I believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun revolves around us, and that other planets don't exist. I could then easily say, "You are forcing a belief upon me!" whenever someone tried to tell me otherwise.

There was a time when people believed this. Then, they grew to accept it, and over the years we have gathered more and more proof of it. However, if people just kept denying it, there would be people today still trying to prove it, and people trying to deny it. We would be getting no where. If people hadn't started teaching heliocentricism (I think that's the word...) in schools, we would still think that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

That is why I think that it's rather important that we teach evolution in schools. Should we teach Creationism? No. Creationism is a strictly religious study, while evolutionism is not. Creationism involves a God. Evolutionism may or may not - it depends on how you look at it. I believe that God laid the groundwork for evolution, and some people who don't believe in God think it sparked on its own. As Buddy said, it isn't teaching Atheism - it just isn't teaching Christianity, which doesn't necessarily mean that it is anti-Christian, or anti- any other religion, for that matter.

I'm not saying that evolutionism is an absolutely solid fact, but it is an old theory with evidence to back it up, and it is impartial of religion.

I can just feel myself sparking a controversy. Oh well.

But this is the problem with state-run schools - they try to target the needs of the average student, but there is no such thing as the average student. They all have different needs, and we should just have privately-run schools to meet them. These schools can then choose what they want to teach and if they want to be affiliated with any religions.

That's what my dad says. I replied with, "That would be a good idea, except for the fact that, if the government didn't regulate schools, that not all towns would have them. Not everyone would get an education." "Right, but no where in the constitution does it guarantee an education."

Just a thought to throw out there. I'm not sure if I agree, but I agree that most state-run schools are going about managing them from the wrong angle.

Sorry if this post made no sense ^^;;. It's nearly midnight and my brain is starting to melt slightly...