Prayer in schools?

[Melanie_]

I thought this was a dead issue, but a substitute teacher in rural Manitoba has filed a complaint with the Minister of Education regarding daily prayer in the school. The school division also has, as part of its mission statement, a line about "cooperation with the family, church and community." This division operates in the southern Manitoba Bible belt, where the overwhelming majority of people are Mennonite; they also are seeing increased immigration of German Mennonites, who find the area culturally similar to what they knew back home. The division's argument is that if parents request prayer in the school, they are allowed to provide it as long as it is outside school hours (they technically start school 5 minutes late). The law also requires that it be held in another part of the school, so that those who choose not to be included are not the ones being asked to leave the room; however the school says that, since virtually all of parents opt in for their children, it makes sense to do it in the classroom.

Personally, I am against prayer in public schools, and would certainly object if it were part of my children's education. But this is a school division that is made up of families that almost all practice the same religion, and it is very ingrained in their culture. Should the law allow for prayer in school in this situation, or should it uphold the seperation just in case someone from another faith moves to the area?

[Riverwind]

Personally, I am against prayer in public schools, and would certainly object if it were part of my children's education. But this is a school division that is made up of families that almost all practice the same religion, and it is very ingrained in their culture. Should the law allow for prayer in school in this situation, or should it uphold the seperation just in case someone from another faith moves to the area?

You also assume that everyone from that particular background is equally devout. I think the ban on prayer in schools must be absolute because it allowing it simply distracts from the primary purpose of education which is to teach kids the skills they need to survive in our information society. If the families want to teach their kids about God they have the weekends.

[Renegade]

One of the principles in our soceity is a separation of church and state. Prayer in a public school vilolates that prinicple.

The parents don't fund a public school, taxpayers do. Even if 100% of the parents decide that the school should violate the principle, it doesn't mean they have the right to do so.

If prayer is introduced into a public school, (assuming 100% of the parents agree), it creates a barrier to any other denomination even considering moving to the area or sending their kids to that public school.

[GostHacked]

Keep it out of the schools.

The seperation of church and state should remain absolute. Parents have the option of teaching their children in their religion of choice in the comfort of their own home. Or what can be done is have the prayer at a local Church on a daily basis. But that can easily be done in the home.

Religion is a personal thing. And a personal relationship with their god of choice. Since it is a private matter it should remain out of the general public funded systems.

[Melanie_]

I agree with all of you; those are the same reasons I oppose prayer in school. I was just surprised to find it was still an issue anywhere, and wondered if it was an issue here. Apparently not.

No one willing to take up the other side of the debate?

[SirSpanky]

I'll only add I know a few people in the "bible belt" around Winnipeg. I find most of the youths reject the religion thats been forced down their throats for so many years.

[Guest eureka]

Odd, though, that the generation that took prayer out of the schools is a generation that grew up with prayer in the schools.

There are also statistics that show lower rates of crime, divorce, teen age pregnancy, substance abuse - you name it - amongst religious groups.

It may be that prayer in the schools reduces the social costs in welfare, health, and in the justice system by a very substantial amount. I would have thought that those many among us who think that society is only an economic system that we are all here to serve just might look to the economic gains to be made through the introduction of religious instruction and prayer in the schools.

[ian5]

I appreciate a lot of the comments that people have posted on this topic. I suppose I should first start by saying that I am a follower of Jesus and prayer is a regular part of my life. That being said, I am a firm believer in religious liberty and would fall on the side of not pulling for mandatory prayer in schools. I do not consider it possible for spirituality to be forced on people - if children do not believe, they do not believe.

On the other hand, in the name of religious liberty I would like to speak in favour of allowing religious meetings in schools. I support providing these in an environment where nobody feels coerced to participate. I see no problem with giving equal access to various groups (Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc.)

In reference to an earlier comment that "the primary purpose of education which is to teach kids the skills they need to survive in our information society." I see this as being somewhat problematic. While I recognize that some may object, I think our education system must cooperate with our families in teaching our children not only the skills they need to succeed in a career, but should also be operative in instilling character in our children. Our schools should teach children honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness. Our children need to become young men and women of character. I am convinced that the future health of our society depends on future generations being more concerned about principles and values than about money and success. We need to be concerned about the greater issues such as the poor, social justice issues, environmental issues, and more. I don't think this is a uniquely Christian idea, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Looking forward to hearing comments on this.

Ian

[Hawk]

I believe in the seperation of church and state, hence I believe the government should not ban prayer (a religious practice) from anywhere. I find it ironic that a nation that will redefine marriage for 1% of our population and also force the education (aka 'Enlightenment') of our children in all manner of controversial things (SSM, Evolution, etc) using the public system, can honestly and with a straight face condemn those that are simply trying to practice their religion.

The road I see most of you treading down now leads to the complete isolation and discrimination of religious people from any public area, simply to be 'understanding' and 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs. Well I say why can't others be 'understanding' and 'tolerant' of the religious people's beliefs? Why is it religion is always the one that has to give ground? And please, for the sake of both of us, don't bring up bad religious history.. because that is one damnably dead horse. But heck with it, do what you want

[Riverwind]

On the other hand, in the name of religious liberty I would like to speak in favour of allowing religious meetings in schools.  I support providing these in an environment where nobody feels coerced to participate.  I see no problem with giving equal access to various groups (Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc.)

I would be surprised if someone has a problem with purely voluntary after school clubs that are based on a single religion. The issue only exists when it is brought up as part of the regular curriculum.

Our schools should teach children honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness.  Our children need to become young men and women of character.)

I would put this on the list of skills required to succeed in life. East Asian cultures (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) rely largely on Confucianism as the basis for social ethics so it is possible to talk of ethics in public schools without religious dogma. For many people, secular humanism is not a religion but the modern western equivalent to Confucianism that provides an ethical framework for how an individual should relate to society. Unfortunately, many Christians see secular humanism as a threat because of its refusal to use religious dogma as the sole basis for determining what is right and what is wrong.

[Renegade]

On the other hand, in the name of religious liberty I would like to speak in favour of allowing religious meetings in schools. I support providing these in an environment where nobody feels coerced to participate. I see no problem with giving equal access to various groups (Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc.)

I would echo Sparhawk's point on this. Giving access to people of a faith to voluntarily gather in a public place should offend no one. However, when religious tradition invades a public school either by activity (morning prayer), or by environment (eg religious posters and items displayed), it becomes exclusionary to those who don't practice the faith.

In reference to an earlier comment that "the primary purpose of education which is to teach kids the skills they need to survive in our information society." I see this as being somewhat problematic. While I recognize that some may object, I think our education system must cooperate with our families in teaching our children not only the skills they need to succeed in a career, but should also be operative in instilling character in our children. Our schools should teach children honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness. Our children need to become young men and women of character. I am convinced that the future health of our society depends on future generations being more concerned about principles and values than about money and success. We need to be concerned about the greater issues such as the poor, social justice issues, environmental issues, and more. I don't think this is a uniquely Christian idea, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree with you. I think one overlooked part of education is ethics and morality. These are not religious issues even though they overlap with religious beliefs. Our children would be better equiped if more time was spent instilling the proper values. Interestingly if you look at most religions and even non-religious people you will see a lot of commonality in core values.

  I believe in the seperation of church and state, hence I believe the government should not ban prayer (a religious practice) from anywhere. I find it ironic that a nation that will redefine marriage for 1% of our population and also force the education (aka 'Enlightenment') of our children in all manner of controversial things (SSM, Evolution, etc) using the public system, can honestly and with a straight face condemn those that are simply trying to practice their religion. 

If you believe in the separation of church and state, you would agree that the government and the public schools system (as an extension of the government) should not impose a religious practice on anyone. Prayer in schools does exactly that. Even if you make if voluntary, childern will feel akward in opting out if their freinds don't. I think 5 min of reflection in silence in a school in which individuals can use to pray, contemplate morality, or daydream if they so wish, is sufficiently inoffensive.

[ian5]

On the other hand, in the name of religious liberty I would like to speak in favour of allowing religious meetings in schools. I support providing these in an environment where nobody feels coerced to participate. I see no problem with giving equal access to various groups (Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc.)

I would echo Sparhawk's point on this. Giving access to people of a faith to voluntarily gather in a public place should offend no one. However, when religious tradition invades a public school either by activity (morning prayer), or by environment (eg religious posters and items displayed), it becomes exclusionary to those who don't practice the faith.

In reference to an earlier comment that "the primary purpose of education which is to teach kids the skills they need to survive in our information society." I see

I agree with you. I think one overlooked part of education is ethics and morality. These are not religious issues even though they overlap with religious beliefs. Our children would be better equiped if more time was spent instilling the proper values. Interestingly if you look at most religions and even non-religious people you will see a lot of commonality in core values.

  I believe in the seperation of church and state, hence I believe the government should not ban prayer (a religious practice) from anywhere. I find it ironic that a nation that will redefine marriage for 1% of our population and also force the education (aka 'Enlightenment') of our children in all manner of controversial things (SSM, Evolution, etc) using the public system, can honestly and with a straight face condemn those that are simply trying to practice their religion. 

If you believe in the separation of church and state, you would agree that the government and the public schools system (as an extension of the government) should not impose a religious practice on anyone. Prayer in schools does exactly that. Even if you make if voluntary, childern will feel akward in opting out if their freinds don't. I think 5 min of reflection in silence in a school in which individuals can use to pray, contemplate morality, or daydream if they so wish, is sufficiently inoffensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that there are different ideas about what the separation of church and state means. For some this means that there should be no church or religious activities in any state institutions. For others it simply means that the state does not force participation. While not against this, perhaps this reflection time isn't necessary. I'm not sure this is a battle I would choose to fight. I think I would argue for an additional component of moral inspiration or some similar thing.

On the other hand, I would contend for the respect of varying religious views. I think this is a very difficult thing to maintain because every teacher has a religious bias or worldview, and this cannot be stopped from coming across in the classroom. Children are very impressionable and very subtle messages can be communicated really easily, both for and against a particular religion.

While idealistically I am fully behind the separation of church and state, I am skeptical sometimes as to if this is really possible. There are religious statements and views tied up in so much of what we teach. Is the separation of church and state a pipe dream? Surely by teaching what we teach we are placing a certain worldview above another? As we teach our children about world events, we are making statement and promoting views about those events. How do we stop our schools from being propaganda machines?

If we allow religious posters and items to be displayed, we communicate a certain message about religion. On the other hand, to prohibit them communicates a different message. And further, what is intended to be communicated is often different than what is understood. This issue is far from simple.

Sorry about the rant... just some thoughts.

Ian

[Riverwind]

While idealistically I am fully behind the separation of church and state, I am skeptical sometimes as to if this is really possible.  There are religious statements and views tied up in so much of what we teach.  Is the separation of church and state a pipe dream?  Surely by teaching what we teach we are placing a certain worldview above another?  As we teach our children about world events, we are making statement and promoting views about those events.  How do we stop our schools from being propaganda machines?

You have pointed out that there is a concept of ethics and morality that transcends religion and is shared by all civilized peoples. You can speak from a ethical/moral viewpoint that comes from your religious teachings without using religious imagery. Preston Manning was able to do this quite well.

The reason religion needs to be pushed to the background in our society it is because of its exclusive nature. Your Bible tells you that I will burn in hell because I do not believe in Jesus even if I live a moral/ethical life that is equal to any good Christian. Modern Christians have tried to forget about that little detail of their faith because they know our society could not function if people from different religious backgrounds do not respect each other. Yet those exclusive teachings are always there and, as a result, any outright use of religious imagery or teachings in public institutions is inherently coercive.

[ian5]

While idealistically I am fully behind the separation of church and state, I am skeptical sometimes as to if this is really possible.  There are religious statements and views tied up in so much of what we teach.  Is the separation of church and state a pipe dream?  Surely by teaching what we teach we are placing a certain worldview above another?  As we teach our children about world events, we are making statement and promoting views about those events.  How do we stop our schools from being propaganda machines?

You have pointed out that there is a concept of ethics and morality that transcends religion and is shared by all civilized peoples. You can speak from a ethical/moral viewpoint that comes from your religious teachings without using religious imagery. Preston Manning was able to do this quite well.

The reason religion needs to be pushed to the background in our society it is because of its exclusive nature. Your Bible tells you that I will burn in hell because I do not believe in Jesus even if I live a moral/ethical life that is equal to any good Christian. Modern Christians have tried to forget about that little detail of their faith because they know our society could not function if people from different religious backgrounds do not respect each other. Yet those exclusive teachings are always there and, as a result, any outright use of religious imagery or teachings in public institutions is inherently coercive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes... I think what I was saying that indeed outright use of religious imagery or teachings in public institutions is inherently coercive. Further, absolute restriction of any religious imagery is coercive against faith.

I think the point I was trying to make is that we can talk all we want that our ethical and moral worldviews transcend religion and is shared by civilized people, but I'm not sure this is entirely the case. Further, I think such a statement is a little presumptuous. Although I would agree that we all share a great deal of common ground, I would maintain that there are still differences.

To state that all civilized people share a certain common ground is perhaps unfair. Within our continent there are varying views on many issues - capital punishment, gun control, treatment of animals, abortion, same sex marriage, and more. Don't make too many assumptions about where I am on these issues - I won't tip my hat at this point. But this fact alone suggests that not all 'civilized' people hold to the same transcendent concepts of ethics and morality. Perhaps I'm making more of this than I should - taking the letter rather than the spirit of your argument.

Emmanuel Kant was one of the initiators of the modern movement - he suggested that belief be jettisoned but the Bible still maintained as a standard of morality and ethics. But it strikes me that in the pluralistic society of our day that just doesn't fly. Many have moved beyond using this as the authority on ethics and morality, and many disagree with many of the ethical and moral claims it is said to make.

Most of this to say that I think we are fooling ourselves to think that we can educate our children in a worldview neutral fashion. The way we educate our children makes a statement about what we believe about the world.

This being said, I am pretty okay with the dominant worldview being taught in our schools not being Christianity. Too much coercion has already occurred in the name of Christianity.

I really appreciate your thoughts and your comments. I have been learning a lot from the insights of the people in the discussion here!

Ian

[Hawk]

If you believe in the separation of church and state, you would agree that the government and the public schools system (as an extension of the government) should not impose a religious practice on anyone. Prayer in schools does exactly that. Even if you make if voluntary, childern will feel akward in opting out if their freinds don't. I think 5 min of reflection in silence in a school in which individuals can use to pray, contemplate morality, or daydream if they so wish, is sufficiently inoffensive.

I agree we shouldn't force prayer on children, but it isn't seperating church and state when you use the state to ban the church. That is not any better than affirmative action.

If you want to outlaw peer pressure go for it, otherwise you are merely using religion as a scapegoat. I find it sickening that a child praying the Lord's Prayer before a test can get in trouble, that is religious persecution. He/she isn't bugging anyone, they just take a few minutes for themselves to pray to their god(s) so leave them be.

On another note, I find it ironic how people can shriek so loudly about religion being 'forced' on children but they have no problem with evolution or even atheism. Both are theories, unproven theories I might add. What makes secular theories so much more acceptable than religious ones? Religious persecution.

[Riverwind]

On another note, I find it ironic how people can shriek so loudly about religion being 'forced' on children but they have no problem with evolution or even atheism. Both are theories, unproven theories I might add. What makes secular theories so much more acceptable than religious ones? Religious persecution.

The theory of gravity is a scientific theory like evolution. There is no absolute proof that gravity works the way we think it does but I assume you do not dispute the theory of gravity. Evolution is a theory that meets the standard of evidence accepted by scientists worldwide. Furthermore, there is nothing in evolution that precludes the idea that a divine creator was responsible for creating the initial building blocks that lead to life. The only reason there is a 'problem' with evolution is some Christians seem to insist that the creation story in the Bible must be literally true no matter how much scientific evidence shows otherwise.

[Black Dog]

I believe in the seperation of church and state, hence I believe the government should not ban prayer (a religious practice) from anywhere.

Separation of church and state is a two way street. Just as the state has no place in religious matters, religiou sinstitutions should be kept out of th epublic sphere (such as publicly funded schools).

find it ironic that a nation that will redefine marriage for 1% of our population and also force the education (aka 'Enlightenment') of our children in all manner of controversial things (SSM, Evolution, etc) using the public system, can honestly and with a straight face condemn those that are simply trying to practice their religion.

Putting aside the idiotic comment about evolution, the issue isn't about individuals' religious practices, but the imposition of religious beliefs on non-religious individuals or individuals of different faith.

The road I see most of you treading down now leads to the complete isolation and discrimination of religious people from any public area, simply to be 'understanding' and 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs.

Religion is a private personal matter. Again: it's not up to the state to tell people what religious people are to believe, nor is it the state's role to facilitate the perpetuation of religious beliefs.

Well I say why can't others be 'understanding' and 'tolerant' of the religious people's beliefs? Why is it religion is always the one that has to give ground?

I think of it as an extension of the principle hat your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In other words, individual religious practices are tolerable so long as they remain personal and the expression of thos ebeliefs is fine as long as it does not infringe on the beliefs of others (including those of other faiths).

Yes... I think what I was saying that indeed outright use of religious imagery or teachings in public institutions is inherently coercive. Further, absolute restriction of any religious imagery is coercive against faith.

Agreed, but are there any examples of kids being disciplined for, say, saying a prayer to themselves or wearing religious paraphanalia?

To state that all civilized people share a certain common ground is perhaps unfair. Within our continent there are varying views on many issues - capital punishment, gun control, treatment of animals, abortion, same sex marriage, and more. Don't make too many assumptions about where I am on these issues - I won't tip my hat at this point. But this fact alone suggests that not all 'civilized' people hold to the same transcendent concepts of ethics and morality.

Sure, but are there not certain absolutes? Further: do religious institutions have a monopoly on morality? Given the vast amount of thought and discussion given to moral issues by secular humanists dating back to the Enlightenment, I'd say not. I gues what I'm trying to say is that morality and ethics can be taught without a religious component.

find it sickening that a child praying the Lord's Prayer before a test can get in trouble, that is religious persecution. He/she isn't bugging anyone, they just take a few minutes for themselves to pray to their god(s) so leave them be.

Has this actually happened?

find it ironic how people can shriek so loudly about religion being 'forced' on children but they have no problem with evolution or even atheism. Both are theories, unproven theories I might add. What makes secular theories so much more acceptable than religious ones? Religious persecution.

Bollocks. Atheism isn't being taught in schools (most atheists come to it the same way I did: by figuring it out for themselves), while there's enough evidence establish evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. It drive me bonker sthat creationsist seem to think a theory is just some half baked notion someone cooks up between bong hits, when theorys are regarded as well-substantiated explanations incorporating evidence, facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[ian5]

Bollocks. Atheism isn't being taught in schools (most atheists come to it the same way I did: by figuring it out for themselves), while there's enough evidence establish evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. It drive me bonker sthat creationsist seem to think a theory is just some half baked notion someone cooks up between bong hits, when theorys are regarded as well-substantiated explanations incorporating evidence, facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure this is really that important for this dialogue, but I'm not sure that you can but the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution in the same category. I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of 7 day creation vs. evolution - I don't think there is enough evidence to decide either way. I think for the most part it is rather irrelevant to the way that we live our lives. But anyway. . . The Law of Gravity is much more testable than the Theory of Evolution is. We can repeatedly drop objects and make measurements and determine that they seem to consistently accelerate and drop at a certain rate. Based on these measurements we can make predictions about what is going to happen to an object under certain conditions. This is true for many fields of science - genetics, biology, chemistry, etc. This is why we can create much of the machinery we create, chemicals we create, etc. etc. Many of the theories that we have concocted have ended up breaking down - in fact, I think most of them have at some point, and we have had to refine them. We can make a lot of predictions with Newton's law, but once you get down to a certain scale they just aren't that applicable anymore.

To my knowledge (and please, I would be sincerely interested in hearing information to the contrary) we don't really have the same kind of tests and measurements to confirm the theory of evolution. Personally, I think much of it seems really far-fetched. The human body is very complex and it seems doubtful that some of the systems that have evolved within our bodies would have evolved. There is way too much co-dependency. On the other hand, there seems to be evidence that suggests that our understanding of the creation story is quite accurate either. What boggles my mind sometimes is that we seem to limit ourselves to these two possibilities. Probably in part because nobody has come up with anything better. But perhaps it is also because the debate has become more than about a simple theory - it has become a religion for some. People cling to the Theory of Evolution more out of a rejection of Christianity than out of a conviction that it is true.

And perhaps this isn't applicable to this thread, but at some level to teach the Theory of Evolution as if it were the only possibility seems like plain bad science. I'm not saying that schools should push the Biblical creation story, but I think we need to be a bit more honest about how certain we are about this theory. I think the certainty of it has been overblown. Yes, there are some aspects of it that seem plausible, but there are difficulties as well. There is a lot that it doesn't seem to explain, and I don't think we have dealt with this with a great deal of integrity - perhaps on either side.

Ian

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure this is really that important for this dialogue, but I'm not sure that you can but the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution in the same category.

That's because they are two differnt things: a law is simply a descriptive

generalization about nature. As Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered...In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Based on these measurements we can make predictions about what is going to happen to an object under certain conditions. This is true for many fields of science - genetics, biology, chemistry, etc. This is why we can create much of the machinery we create, chemicals we create, etc. etc. Many of the theories that we have concocted have ended up breaking down - in fact, I think most of them have at some point, and we have had to refine them. We can make a lot of predictions with Newton's law, but once you get down to a certain scale they just aren't that applicable anymore.

To my knowledge (and please, I would be sincerely interested in hearing information to the contrary) we don't really have the same kind of tests and measurements to confirm the theory of evolution. Personally, I think much of it seems really far-fetched.

I'm borrowing heavily from a dog-eared copy of SciAm which dealth with this topic.

All scientists rely to some degree on indirect evidence: that is, things which we cannot observe, but nonetheless can be reasonably judged to occur. The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear.

You say that evolutionary science does not have any mechanisms which allow us to test what is going to happen to an object under certain conditions. That's not true. Evolution is observed on a microevolutionary basis all the time

(hence gene mutations, viral resistance to antibodies, the breeding of animals to produce select traits). This is the study of changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species.Macroevolution, on the other hand, draws from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related and how they changed over time.

These hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).

The human body is very complex and it seems doubtful that some of the systems that have evolved within our bodies would have evolved.

This line of thinking has always been interesting, given the poor construction and design of the human body.

And perhaps this isn't applicable to this thread, but at some level to teach the Theory of Evolution as if it were the only possibility seems like plain bad science. I'm not saying that schools should push the Biblical creation story, but I think we need to be a bit more honest about how certain we are about this theory. I think the certainty of it has been overblown.

The thing about evolution is its basic premise has never been refuted. details have been tweaked, new ideas on how evolution occurred, but the basic idea that organisms evolve and develop over time has never been challenged. Th eevidence is solid.

(BTW I'd be happy to continue this in another thread.)

[Nemo]

deleted

[Hawk]

The theory of gravity is a scientific theory like evolution. There is no absolute proof that gravity works the way we think it does but I assume you do not dispute the theory of gravity. Evolution is a theory that meets the standard of evidence accepted by scientists worldwide. Furthermore, there is nothing in evolution that precludes the idea that a divine creator was responsible for creating the initial building blocks that lead to life. The only reason there is a 'problem' with evolution is some Christians seem to insist that the creation story in the Bible must be literally true no matter how much scientific evidence shows otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Theories are theories, whether they are religious or not your arguments work both ways. Hence, Evolution and other secular studies (which are completely unproven) should not be forced on my children, and I won't force my religion on your children... fair?

Oh, and please do enlighten me about the 'scientific' support for Evolution I know of more science that disproves it than proves it.

[Black Dog]

Oh, and please do enlighten me about the 'scientific' support for Evolution  I know of more science that disproves it than proves it.

I really doubt that. But let's have it anyway. Given your inability to distinguish scientific theory from hocus-pocus, this should be good for a chuckle.

Again:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact

[Hawk]

Separation of church and state is a two way street. Just as the state has no place in religious matters, religiou sinstitutions should be kept out of th epublic sphere (such as publicly funded schools).

Read my reply to Renegade, I addressed this exact topic. You can't say its ok to use the state to ban religion from a public institute, as that would contradict your claim to seperate church from religion. What you are advocating is rather state control of religion.

Putting aside the idiotic comment about evolution, the issue isn't about individuals' religious practices, but the imposition of religious beliefs on non-religious individuals or individuals of different faith.

No the issue is you are banning one theory in favor of secular theories. I am saying don't ban any or ban all, after all isn't Canada all about equality? =p

Religion is a private personal matter. Again: it's not up to the state to tell people what religious people are to believe, nor is it the state's role to facilitate the perpetuation of religious beliefs.

So your for state control of religion to the point where religion should not be permitted outside your home/place of worship (since its a private matter) yet you are ok with naked men masturbating and/or marching in front of children in gay parades?

Careful with how you answer that one

I think of it as an extension of the principle hat your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In other words, individual religious practices are tolerable so long as they remain personal and the expression of thos ebeliefs is fine as long as it does not infringe on the beliefs of others (including those of other faiths).

Agreed. So the state should not be able to impose on childrens' right to have a religion, and to include it in their school life.

Has this actually happened?

It did to a family that my parents know, it came up in church too. She was praying the Lords prayer and was asked to stop by her teacher, when she didn't stop she was sent to the Principles office.

I have heard from others this has happened elsewhere too, but I don't have any actual sources to back it up. If I find any I will be sure to let you know (although, with mainly Liberal media in this country such things are not likely to be reported)

Bollocks. Atheism isn't being taught in schools (most atheists come to it the same way I did: by figuring it out for themselves), while there's enough evidence establish evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. It drive me bonker sthat creationsist seem to think a theory is just some half baked notion someone cooks up between bong hits, when theorys are regarded as well-substantiated explanations incorporating evidence, facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

As I have stated, prove it or admit it isn't a plausible theory.

One interesting tidbit you should think about, Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. If the physics of our universe is limited in this fashion how did our energy come into existence? Where did matter come from? How did the universe begin?

Oh yes, Evolution has evidence =p Evidence to disprove itself, I mean the string theory is the ONLY possible theory that has much merit and it is COMPLETELY theory (no proof whatsoever to back it up, merely speculation)

Therefore, don't teach my kids unfounded theories at all or allow all theories.

[Hawk]

Oh, and please do enlighten me about the 'scientific' support for Evolution  I know of more science that disproves it than proves it.

I really doubt that. But let's have it anyway. Given your inability to distinguish scientific theory from hocus-pocus, this should be good for a chuckle.

Again:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bring it on

Oh, and scientific theory IS hocus-pocus, until it is proven.

[Riverwind]

One interesting tidbit you should think about, Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. If the physics of our universe is limited in this fashion how did our energy come into existence? Where did matter come from? How did the universe begin?

This an excellent example of the logic failures of anti-evolution creationists: there is nothing in evolution theory that precludes the idea that a divine creator - evolution theory simply describes how it is possible for new life forms to appear without the intervention of the creator. In fact, many scientists are believers in God and see science as way to better understand the universe created by God.

I find it puzzling that many Christians have such big problems with evolution but are perfectly willing to accept the science that shows Earth is a miniscule planet on the outer rim of one galaxy among billions. It seems to me that a God that really thought his/her creations on Earth were so special then he/she would have given them a more prominent position in the universe.