Replies

The only evidence going for it is the theological claim . . .

Organized matter and laws do not exist by virtue of theological claims. What makes you think such things are inherently "religious?" Is it just because a good many people attribute them to God; just because organized matter and laws concur with certain ideas deemed "religious?"

A government school is not a public forum.

I said public "context." Public schools are paid for by people from all walks of life. The law prohibits any one them to be favored or discriminated against on a religious basis. Public schools are obligated to allow religious viewpoints a hearing, whether it be in a class orientated to one of the sciences, or a class orientated toward sports.

I am arguing against government indoctrination of religion in government schools.

Allowing the presentation of certain points of view is what you call "indoctrination?" You must believe people to be weak-minded. Or maybe you think they need to be controlled lest they hear the wrong ideas. You are not arguing for free inquiry, but against it. You are free to indulge non-theistic notions by themselves in your own little school house. Once you open the doors to the public and have the public pay for them, then their views get to be heard, too, no matter how afraid you are that you and your children might be "indoctrinated."

" Organized matter and laws do not exist by virtue of theological claims."

The point is we have NO IDEA why things exist the way they do. Saying that it's a designer/God is a theological, not a scientific claim.

"Is it just because a good many people attribute them to God; just because organized matter and laws concur with certain ideas deemed "religious?"

Gay jeans argument.

" I said public "context."

*Public context* could mean anything. A gevernment school is not a street corner. The children there can not just walk out and leave. While they are there, they are at the mercy of whoever is teaching.

" The law prohibits any one them to be favored or discriminated against on a religious basis."

The law prohibits them from establishing religion. Teaching ID (a theological claim) is an establishment of religion.

"Public schools are obligated to allow religious viewpoints a hearing, whether it be in a class orientated to one of the sciences, or a class orientated toward sports."

No, they are obligated to teach NO religious viewpoints. Any teaching of a religious viewpoint as true is an establishment of religion.

" Allowing the presentation of certain points of view is what you call "indoctrination?"

When you have children as captive audiences in your class and you start teaching them a theological claim, you are indoctrinating them.

"Or maybe you think they need to be controlled lest they hear the wrong ideas."

That's your view. You think people need to be taught theology, your theology, and it burns you inside that they can't be because of a Constitution you despise.

"You are free to indulge non-theistic notions by themselves in your own little school house."

A government run school can ONLY teach non-theistic claims. You have it totally backwards (as usual).

"Once you open the doors to the public and have the public pay for them, then their views get to be heard, too, no matter how afraid you are that you and your children might be "indoctrinated."

The Constitutional ban on the establishment of religion disagrees with you. It's precisely because the public is paying for these schools that any theological claims have to be curtailed. When you pay for the school with private monies, you can teach any religious view you wish. Not with public money.