Originally Posted by void *
So CD, here's a dilemma for you, and maybe you will get the point.
I have no problem with schools *not* teaching non-belief under the same principle that would have courts and government treat non-belief as being protected by the First Amendment, legally defining it to be treated as a religion.
The Discovery Institute supported the teaching of ID in schools, when that was being litigated, on the basis that it is science, not religion. They also supported the plaintiff in this lawsuit, which required that this guy be fired because of his belief in ID, and that firing be religious discrimination.
Me: "Fine, treat athiesm as a religion for legal purposes, you get the right result even though it's not actually a religion as known by a lay person - both in the case where you don't teach it in school, and in the case where attempting to prevent someone from not believing restricts their ability to believe or not believe as their conscience dictates"
The Discovery Institute: "We want ID to be treated as not a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a wins in this lawsuit here, but we want it to be treated as a religious concept by the courts when that would allow a win in that lawsuit there"
So explain to me how I am using the same logic in both places again? I don't want it one way here and one way there - I am fine with atheism being treated as religious for first amendment purposes both with regard to preventing having it taught in school, and preventing discrimination against people merely because they don't believe.
That can't be said of the Discovery Institute and ID - they want to say it's not religion when it comes to teaching it in schools, but that it *is* religion when it comes to a claim (which turned out to be false) that some guy was fired because he believed it.
It is quite simply not the same logic. It is non-contradiction vs. contradiction. Applying the logic the Discovery Institute is using, it would be perfectly acceptable for a science textbook to state 'There is no God' - and that is actually an incorrect result, any public school attempting to use such a science textbook would get sued and *lose*.
You completely missed the point. The fact is that ID, Creationism, it just sorta happened, extraterrestrial sources, are all just unsupported theories.
Yeah, there are some people that believe there is convincing evidence for one or more of those theories. I have kids. I balance what my kids hear at school with reality. I discussed today, with my 17 year old that MLK was not a Democrat for a good reason. Democrats fought against civil rights for African Americans. There are recently retired prominent members of the Dem party (Byrd) that were very prominent members of the KKK also. There is a rather infamous LBJ quote that uses the N-word, and how they can get them to vote Democrat. “I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Lyndon Baines Johnson about the Great Society plan.
A well known democrat swore on a bible above MLK's travel bible today. It's sad about how much that guy had to ignore to think that was appropriate.
If you watched any of that factual information on the news today, I missed it.
A balanced, non-biased, non-agenda driven approach is best in public schools. Even if that means acknowledging it is possible that life on Earth was designed.