On 13 Feb 2006 11:04:46 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Renata wrote:

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights...

-snip-
In fact, public schools are making a choice based on this l'il ole
amendment - to not support a particular religion's philosophies. It
doesn't make secularism into a religion.

Secularism *most certainly* is a belief system no different in kind
than any other religion. Every time a school chooses a secular
agenda, it chooses an epistemology, a values system, and a particular
point-of-view about the world in which we live. For example,
so-called "multi-culturalism" is a secular values agenda in that it
conciously make no distinctions between the moral "qualities" of
different cultures.

I'm not arguing against secularism here. I'm arguing that you
cannot make choices in a public school setting without embracing
*some* values system and right now the schools have chosen
secular values. This is as offensive to religious people as
choosing Christian values and epistemology would be to an atheist.
There is thus *no* way to run a publicly funded education program
without violating the sensibilities of some significant portion
of the population.

Public schools are prelcuded from picking a particular religious
leaning since all the kids may not espouse that leaning. EVen within
the broad swath of those defined as "Chrisitan" there are sufficient
differences, and that's before adding in the various other flavors of
religion that exist on earth. Therefore, they chose a non-religious
agenda.

What the folks hollering for the introduction of religion to public
schools assume is that it will be their brand of religion that will
prevail.


You want religion in school, there are private, religious institutions
available, many of whom have a better overall education program than
the public schools.
Morals and such should be taught in the home.





Not all religions on this earth espouse this idea of ID and teaching
ID would thus "favor" that particular religion's views.

For the moment, (unless/until ID is established as legitimate Science)
that's right. But espousing a purely matter/mechanical/naturalist
view of knowledge is just as much a statement of belief. In both
cases, these are inbound *assumptions* about how the world operates
based on individual *belief*.

Hardly individual belief. One has evidence, the other has none. ID,
at the moment (and probably forever - you remember this thing called
"faith") is indeed a presonal belief. Zero evidence and no way to
prove any of it's concepts.


You cannot argue against ID being
permitted in the schools on the one hand and on the other defend the
presence of materialist/naturalism on the other - its hypocritical.
Either both belong in the school system (noting that, for the moment,
ID ought not to be taught as "Science") or *neither* belongs in the
school.

-snip-