Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="squeak9798" data-source="post: 5837806" data-attributes="member: 555320">If it&#039;s public property, then why is there any particular religious symbolism at all?&nbsp; Why Christianity and no other religion?&nbsp; Why isn&#039;t there a giant Buddha in the public square next to that Nativity Scene?&nbsp; Why isn&#039;t there a symbol of every religion in that public place?That validity of displays on public property isn&#039;t subject to &quot;popular demand&quot;, it&#039;s subject to the constitution and laws of this country.&nbsp; Nothing more, nothing less.Depends on what we are discussing.&nbsp; I see no reason religion&#039;s role in human history should be ignored as it&#039;s played a pretty important role in human history.But if you were discussing anything other than religions general influence on history and specific events, then you&#039;re going to have to be more detailed.You&#039;re going to have to be more specific, as this is approaching a very fine line.Religious values themselves have no place in the public education system.&nbsp; A class on the history and specifics of ALL religions might be acceptable under specific guidelines, although it runs the very high risk of being an soapbox upon which to preach the bible and Christian viewpoints much as the intelligent design issue has become a way for creationist to attempt to slip it into the classroom.&nbsp; And that&#039;s the problem.&nbsp; People don&#039;t use those programs for educational purposes, they use them to push their own agendas.You apparently don&#039;t understand science.Science isn&#039;t irrefutable.&nbsp; In fact, the very thing scientist try to do is attempt to refute present knowledge!&nbsp; That&#039;s what they are trying to do, disprove or overturn present understanding.&nbsp;&nbsp; Discover something no one else has.&nbsp; That&#039;s the point of science!&nbsp; Guess what science is not?&nbsp; Science is NOT something that is irrefutable.&nbsp; Because it can not be experimentally tested.&nbsp; It can not be overturned.&nbsp; It can not be used to predict the outcome of future events or experiments.&nbsp; Something that is irrefutable is NOT science.Something that is truly irrefutable (an &quot;intelligent designer&quot;, for instance) has no place anywhere near science or public education.&nbsp; If someone is trying to present very unscientific information, information that can not stand up to or even be tested under scientific scrutiny then again, it has no place in public education.Sorry, but &quot;holding something dear&quot; is not a valid reason to allow utter, religiously driven nonsense into public education.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="squeak9798, post: 5837806, member: 555320"] If it's public property, then why is there any particular religious symbolism at all? Why Christianity and no other religion? Why isn't there a giant Buddha in the public square next to that Nativity Scene? Why isn't there a symbol of [B]every[/B] religion in that public place? That validity of displays on public property isn't subject to "popular demand", it's subject to the constitution and laws of this country. Nothing more, nothing less. Depends on what we are discussing. I see no reason religion's role in human history should be ignored as it's played a pretty important role in human history. But if you were discussing anything other than religions general influence on history and specific events, then you're going to have to be more detailed. You're going to have to be more specific, as this is approaching a very fine line. Religious values themselves have no place in the public education system. A class on the history and specifics of [B][COLOR=Red]ALL[/COLOR][/B] religions [I]might[/I] be acceptable under specific guidelines, although it runs the very high risk of being an soapbox upon which to preach the bible and Christian viewpoints much as the intelligent design issue has become a way for creationist to attempt to slip it into the classroom. And that's the problem. People don't use those programs for educational purposes, they use them to push their own agendas. You apparently don't understand science. Science isn't irrefutable. In fact, the very thing scientist try to do is attempt to [I]refute[/I] present knowledge! That's what they are trying to do, disprove or overturn present understanding. Discover something no one else has. That's the [B]point[/B] of science! Guess what science is [I]not[/I]? Science is NOT something that is irrefutable. Because it can not be experimentally tested. It can not be overturned. It can not be used to predict the outcome of future events or experiments. Something that is irrefutable is NOT science. Something that is truly irrefutable (an "intelligent designer", for instance) has no place anywhere near science or public education. If someone is trying to present very unscientific information, information that can not stand up to or even be tested under scientific scrutiny then again, it has [B]no[/B] place in public education. Sorry, but "holding something dear" is not a valid reason to allow [B]utter, religiously driven nonsense[/B] into public education. [/QUOTE]

Verification