Please forgive me and remind me what valid point you brought forth. I thought your point was that they are not allowed to promote or suppress any religion in school–but some do. I thought I addressed the question when I said they are not to do so even though some officials don’t understand what the courts have actually ruled.

AND
“You did say that the teachings of Darwin are not considered religious yet to be religious one must have strong faith in what one believes to be the truth. “

Not actually, many are religious but have no faith. They just do certain things their religion requires. (You do know there are MANY different religions, don’t you?)

Darwin put forth an idea to explain observed facts. The way to prove his idea wrong is to find facts which violate. Science doesn’t try to prove a theory, they try to disprove it. That’s actually the very opposite of faith. If they can’t disprove it, they build on it.

AND
“they – - – “require” it taught to our young. By “they” I mean the Dept. of Education-an arm of the government.”

Notice the danger if government actually had the power to promote one religion over the other. They could insist everybody believe whatever a majority insisted on. You’ll be happy to know the Department of Education doesn’t have that power yet. Local school boards and states set standards for education.

You believe the theory of evolution MUST be a religion because it disagrees with your beliefs. There’s more than one reason to disagree with a given religious doctrine. One of those reasons is if the teachings disagree with observed facts.

David for open eyes

You did say that the teachings of Darwin are not considered religious yet to be
religious one must have strong faith in what one believes to be the truth. Apparently, even tho it cannot be proven true, Darwinism is what they express
their undieing faith in and “require” it taught to our young. By “they” I mean the
Dept. of Education-an arm of the government.

Because US can do what US wish as long as we don’t make NOT-US comply with our thinking.

One good example of why that is better is to ask yourself if you would like Barney Frank telling your children how to believe? If government could, he would be part of the decision.

As to Darwin, what he wrote isn’t a religion, it’s and idea based on many observations. Others have made many other observations which shore up the idea.

David for honesty

Why then is it “THEM” that has the control over the freedom of speach and religion
that is expressed and how it is done? In Santa Rosa County school officials are
not allowed to bless their food except behind closed doors. Of coarse, there is
the case of the Colorado high school validictorian that was denied her deploma
for thanking God for her blessings in her speach at graduation. They even turned off her microphone before her speach was finished.

Yet they teach the religion of Darwin openly as fact, not theory. In Illinois some
public schools have, at taxpayers expense, installed certian items that cater to
Islam. Yet students are not allowed to wear tee shirts with a cross on it to
school. Go figure.

The answer is you CAN, just not that you can make THEM do so.

The only thing which is forbidden is for school officials acting as agents of the state from telling you to do so–or NOT to do so. Sometimes they get confused on that second part and illegally tell folks they can’t do some things which they can, but not because of the courts. My son brought his Bible to class every day, was never hassled about it.

I also knew a friend who got in trouble in school for preaching, not for the preaching but because he disrupted classes to do so. He explained to me later that he had become convinced the Rapture was near at hand and warning them was more important than letting the teachers teach math or literature or anything else. He could have done what he did at lunch or other free times, just not to the point of disrupting classes.

In it’s June 13, 1963 8-1 ruling on School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Shempp et al. and Murray v. Curlett, the Supreme Court said, in part: the state must
“be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.”
and
“Nothing we have said here indicates such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment.”

David for truth

Just Curious

I forget. Which group used the power of government to make a law to take away another groups rights? Where in this case did anyone attempt to take away anybody’s right to keep and bear arms? It didn’t happen, did it?

They were afraid the doctors would write down the answers to questions and that the government would use those records to take away the right to keep and bear arms. They are afraid of the danger of the government knowing too much personal information. At one point they were wanting to jail doctors who asked questions they didn’t want asked. I didn’t keep up with the final product, doesn’t matter since the law is illegal on its face, but the one trying to take away rights should be clear.

David for eating pretzels,
not thinking in their twists

I don’t see how the rights of the law abiding are the same as the actions of the law breakers. To my limited knowledge, the NRA has never supported using weapons to commit crimes. Their main fear seems to be that criminals will carry weapons whether or not potential victims are allowed to do so.

Most everybody wants all their constitutionally protected rights. Some just concentrate on one over the others because they feel that one is threatened, accepting that others will be looking out for the other rights.

It IS surprising that some imply the right to speak is ended if it potentially touches on right to keep and bear arms–which it doesn’t. Just as your right to speak against arms doesn’t end their rights to have them as long as they don’t commit felonies with them. You can even campaign to have the Constitution amended to take away any of the listed rights. I doubt you will succeed, but you are free to try.

David for the people