You don't have the ability to understand what I am saying. Your problem is you are so defensive on the subject of religion you only see what you want to see, as you have proven time and time again. Regardless of what someone says, you only have the ability to interpret it one way. You really need to work on that. I didn't ask you to explain anything. You offered that on your own. You'd be here spewing the same crap day after day if given the opportunity. Me, I have other things to do most days, but sometimes I'll wind you up and watch spin like a top, if I don't have much else going on. Call it entertainment. I already did, you can't "decode" my answer for the reason I mentioned earlier. You think you know what my answer should be, based on my beliefs, but you can't comprehend why I would answer differently.
Let's see, capital punishment is in fact law in numerous states, therefore, one would assume it would be taught as such in schools. Then again, I'm assuming your opinion is the result of absorbing some form of libertarian trash, so that says it all.
And we disagree. I believe it needs to be acknowledged if we are going to teach kids how to function in society in general. You agree, I think, but we disagree as to which forum this should occur in. Education shouldn't take place in a box. I believe education also includes helping people learn to interact in a society where not everyone agrees with them. (reference martin as an example) Science class is the forum where the subject arises, I see nothing wrong with expanding the scope of science class to the point it addresses why students who support scientific theories will run into opposition on the subject. You can home school a kid and teach them everything a book has to offer. I favor publicly "educating" them and exposing them to what books can't offer. Like Rodney King said, "can't we all just get along?". :hihi:
You really need to let that one go. We all have the ability to understand what you may say, but you appear to severely lack the ability to actually say it. You'll never be in any danger of going over anyones head around here. Count on it. Yes, make that assumption. But it's wrong. It's not 'taught' in schools. A teacher may inform their students that the death penalty is legal in their state, but they are not, and should not be, allowed to teach their stance on it. 'That says it all', huh? What does it say, exactly? I'll just interpret that as, 'I don't know the first damn thing about libertarianism, so I'll just regard it as trash in a feeble attempt to discredit any argument that you may have.' You can attack my beliefs as a whole, or you can stick to the issue at hand. One of those options might render itself favorable if you're trying to make a point. The other will just ulimately reveal how little you actually have to say.
Schools funded by state or national governments should not be allowed to teach religious doctrine. I personally believe in Intelligent Design but there are so many different theories to Intelligent Design which one do you pick to teach? Do you teach that everything was created in 6 days and on the 7th God rested? Or do you teach that there was an unspecified amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as "Gap Theorists" hold to. Or maybe they should teach that each "day" (yom in Hebrew can mean either a 24 hour period or an unspecified amount of time) was really millions or billions of years. I'm not sure which of those I believe in but I do believe that God created everything, probably using evolution as his means to accomplish his goal. No one can really say for 100% if evolution is correct or if one of the many Intelligent Design scenarios is correct or even if something like the Babylonian or Egyptian creation story is correct, which is why public schools should stick to teaching a nonreligious view. If you want you kids to get the religious view of things, then you are probably already a church goer and your kids have been learning it since they have been there, or if you have money send them to a private school. Now what I don't agree with is those people who get school vouchers to send their kids to private schools and then try to tell the schools that they can't teach creationism or Intelligent Design. Those people really chaff my fanny because they are choosing to send their kids to a private school, that are almost always run by a church group, and have no right to try and make the school that is funded by private means to change their curricula.
what is actually happening is you are trying to spin your absurd opinion that creationism deserves respect in schools. you cant directly say that it, becaus4e even you realize it is nuts. you keep acting like it is just another theory among many. it isnt. it is a baseless theory, like a string of random numbers offered up as a solution to a math problem. well, i am sorry but i am too dumb to figure out your answer. i will assume that you agree that prayer should be taught to medical students as a possible cure for disease. since you do not have the courage to answer directly i base it on this statement: "I see nothing wrong with expanding the scope of science class to the point it addresses why students who support scientific theories will run into opposition on the subject." because obviously in medical school you are basically teaching the science of healing the human body, and most americans believe prayer heals. so instead of restricting the discussion of prayer to social studies classes like red suggests, i suppose you are saying med students should be taught that prayer is one of the option available for them as a professional healer. science is not the study of what people believe, that is psychology or sociology, which is what red is saying. science class is not a place to celebrate diversity and honor everybody's superstition. it is a place where reality is studied. in fact, if you believe things should be taught, not based on reality, but based on how many people believe them, perhaps you should teach islamic science or buddhist science too. lots of people believe that.
Like I said, I get it, it just doesn't make any sense. Why ramble on for days to basically say nothing? If all you were saying is that it should be 'acknowledged' (if you read closely, you'll see that I even discussed that several times), why did you bury it underneath seven layers of horsesh!t? Sounds to me like you're overcompensating for the lack of a fundamental argument. Were we, at any point, talking about law school? No. Oh, ok. So since you assert that it will not be 'significant', then all of its beliefs and ideals must be 'trash', right? Sheep. Pretty weak criteria, if you ask me. That must also mean that you don't think that Democratic ideals are trash, since their party is 'significant.' Don't worry. I won't waste any effort on priveleging you with that sort of enlightenment. Just stick to trashing and name-calling Libertarians. That'll show 'em.
