Teaching in a different language isn't in the same ballpark as the debate we're having now. Not everyone turns out to be a scientist. Everyone has to speak English. Not a good comparison.
Also, we do not currently have a standard education throughout this country. A kid taught at an inner city school is not going to be the same as a kid taught at an affluent, suburban school. Education equality will never be reached therefore I do not believe that is a viable point.
I never said we should have school in church, a mosque, or any other religious establishment. I simply said that I see nothing wrong with a community teaching the beliefs of it's predominant religion's version of creationism, in a VOLUNTARY class, to its students. Nothing wrong with that. If a parent does not want to their child subjected to it, then they don't have to send the child to the class. I also never advocated for it to be a requirement of each school system. It should be a choice of each state and then down to the school system of whether they want curriculum such as this taught at their school.
First, no, not everyone needs to speak English by any social rule or current law in America. America has no official language, you can require any official report be translated for you. I personally don't agree with that and think there should be an official language and that it should be English. Language is a learned skill, not an aspect of birth, it's not discrimination to require English. So, in a way, we agree on this, although I'm not certain if it's for the same reason.
I agree that our School system isn't perfect (understatement), but that's certainly not a good reason to accept it as it is. We shouldn't accept anything less than a standard and uniform education, at-least for a core curriculum. Education equality will never be reached if, and only if, we don't try harder. We might not agree on everything, but I don't read a "defeatist" vibe from you, so I can only assume we agree that we should always try harder, instead of giving up, when things suck.
Science is not and should never be a voluntary class. Not everyone will be a scientist, but everyone should have a basic understanding of science. It's the basis for life's Bull-Crap-Meter, how else will you know when a proposal is or isn't in your best interest? You simply can't do that when you have no basic understanding of the world. You mention "micro-evolution", which I'll get to later, but it's evident that you are familiar with some science. Could you even stomach the proposal that your child not learn science? It's not a big philosophical question, no more so than whether you should teach Math or English to a child, even though they won't be Mathematicians or Journalists.
I was a college math tutor for several years, and I constantly got the "when will I ever use this in the real world?" crap from kids, and I said "you probably won't, but learn it anyway." (Little bastards). But, in reality, you're constantly using math and science, whether you realize it or not, and you can easily recognize the adults that are illiterate to math/science in the exact same way you could recognize someone who can't read. They are typically the janitors and hamburger flippers of life, which is why I'm so passionate to protect our children from that. I don't want my children, your children, or anyone's children to be forced into that life. (Although, some math/science illiterate people grow up to be congressmen.)
So, in your eyes, the Catholic church should be forced to pay for birth control for it's employees? Religious rights do trump secular rights in cases such as the one we're speaking of. The cases you brought up (sharia, witch hunts) are harmful to a person physically and emotionally therefore the greater good should trump them. There is a line to draw when speaking of religious rights vs the rights of all. Physical and emotional harm is that line. Not the belief by some that science outweighs religious belief.
I think the Catholic Church should absolutely pay for birth control. In theory, no Catholic employee will ever use it as contraception, only for treating PMS. What if we gave such benefit of the doubt to every religion and employer; "Sorry, my religion forbids me from giving you health coverage, at all." No-insurance-afarians. There's a reason we don't give special treatment to religion; it will be abused, and you know it.
Scientific illiteracy is as harmful to our society as any physical attack; racial prejudices due to social-Darwinism, anti-medicine cults, higher unemployment due to untrained workers, distrust of valid scientific warnings, rape as a method to cure AIDS, Faith-healing as an alternative to chemotherapy, etc. Scientific illiteracy has a real, empirically proven effect of doing harm to America. I wouldn't care if it didn't.
I beg to differ my friend. Evolution is vehemently opposed by many religions and has not been proven. If we're speaking of Micro-evolution, you have a point. However, Macro-evolution has not been proven. Many religions, including mine, do not believe the macro-evolution theory. Yet, when my son comes home from school I have to teach him to take the test according to what the book says, not to what he believes.~snip
First, Macro-evolution is a creation of Christian Apologists, not any Biologist. Scientists in the field don't believe there is any difference between a small thing evolving and a big thing evolving or a small change over a small time versus a big change over a big time. It's all the same theory and takes the same evidence; if micro-evolution is true, macro-evolution is true by definition, because they're the same thing. In case you are being misled, know that there is no great debate about this among scientists;
united states - Are only 700 out of 480,000 life scientists creationists? - Skeptics Stack Exchange , 95% of all scientists believe in evolution, and 99.85% among those that actually study life in any way. If you choose to teach your children an alternative, so be it, I have nothing against it, but please don't water down all Science education with a completely fake "debate" among scientific theories. There is no debate among scientists.
Sex education is a no brainer here. I do not want my son being taught the version of sex education offered in public school. Period. They teach that protected sex is the best way to go. I teach abstinence until marriage is the best way to go. They teach that homosexual sex is acceptable (in some school districts). I do not. They teach things beyond the science such as oral sex, etc. I teach those things a different way.
We've discussed that such education is optional by permission slip. But, I think you have a misunderstanding of the class, which I've sat in on recently in both Florida and New York (can't say "everywhere", but I've seen 5 classes of it now); they don't teach safe sex first, they always teach abstinence as the best method. Many times they say the phrase, "But, you're best chance is to not have sex at all." or "Abstinence is the only method that is 100% safe". Oral sex is mentioned, but only in the light of, you can still get a disease, not "It's so great, you should try it!". Homosexual sex is not mentioned in any class I've ever sat in, other than one that presented the exceptionally vague idea that homosexuals use anal sex, and still need to use protection against STDs. That's doesn't condone Homosexual sex, and definitely didn't promote it. It's basic knowledge versus a recent rant I heard "they'll teach my kids to eat S**T just like all those FA***TS!" But, again, you can opt out. Seriously, they're going to have questions one day, sex is even in the bible. If you rather answer it, great, that's preferable if you ask me, just know what the hell you're doing; namely that abstinence only programs have the absolute worst record for reducing teen pregnancies and transmissions of STDs.
Again, as I've said, I would not endorse a student being required to learn any religion. I've made that point crystal clear.
You're contradicting yourself. If you're going to have them teach a creationist lesson in school, that's teaching religion. I don't see your position as crystal clear, here.
I believe this is a ridiculous argument. What evidence can a Bible show in a courtroom? None. What psychic can show a track record of predictions that is vouched for by a court authority? None. Of course we take fingerprints. God designed us to all have a different one. Of course we're taking a blood sample. God designed us to have different blood types and unique DNA.
Where, in the bible, does it mention any of that? And, yes people try to use bible quotes as evidence in court cases all the time;
Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to Jury's Use of Bible | Fox News . Also, there's always someone who tries to disbar Atheists as witnesses if they swear on a bible, later saying that they must be liars if they're willing to swear on god without believing in him.
Evolution? No, it is required. Sex ed is typically a permission slip, I'll agree with you there
In all counties where this is even conceivably an issue, they typically still give out permission slips for Evolution lectures. I had to get a permission slip to be read an excerpt from a Harry Potter book, when I was in high school.
