So show me how laws protecting religious freedom equates to people spouting off religious ideology in the classroom?
er, you seem to be missing the point entirely. Please go back and read the OP and then come back and we can discuss this rationally. I support the notion of freedom to practice whatever religion a person wishes to believe in, no matter how ridiculous I may think it is. OTOH, that freedom does not extend into the academic arena to the extent that dogmatic nonsense can replace established fact. I must confess to being a little befuddled as to why this rather obvious logical condition, isn't to some.
the point is you interpret laws protecting freedom of religion to mean that people are going to be teaching ideology in the classrooms. does it say anything different than what it said before? If not there is no need. If you can't discuss this rationally that is a you problem that can't be solved with me reading the o p again. that freedom extends throughout all arenas including academic as long as it's on American soil you have that right. As far as dogmatic nonsense that doesn't make sense. we're talking about a state not being allowed to compel children to say that their religion is wrong. Read the First Amendment. Take note after mentions the state can't interfere with your religious beliefs but it doesn't say except for an academic realms. I don't know why the only options are to interfere with the practice of someone's religion or there's going to be people spouting ideology in the classroom. It seems to have worked for centuries without either of those two things being the case.
Nope, that people will answer classroom questions with supernatural religious dogma in a ridiculous attempt to create a false equivalency of faith based mythology with science based fact. sorry but it sure does seem to me you should read it again because you are totally mischaracterizing my point. a Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to answer fact based questions with religious dogma in an academic environment whose purpose is developing learning and analysis skills and knowledge transfer. If you can pass an exam in america for responding to a question regarding human evolution with God made man apart from the animals out of dirt, then no wonder trump is president. Excuse me, but its not compelling them to say their religion is wrong, it compells them to learn the facts and provide them with the skills required for them to assess the validity of the brainwashing they have rec'd in their homes and religious institutions. Its not interfering with your religious beliefs. Its about not letting those religious beliefs interfere in non relevant academic realms. (for instance its perfectly appropriate to discuss religious dogma in a philosophy course). Because the state should not be promoting factless nonsense created millennia ago to explain the workings of the natural world and based on superstition, ignorance and imagination.
I'm not aware of your position except for that somehow answering one question is starting religious ideology in the classroom and I don't know how. And you refuse to explain it so your position makes no kind of sense.
My apologies if from my perspective my position was obvious. snide reference to the paranoia of sharia law coming to america. kinda satirical smart arsed comment. I believe the word pathetic indicates my perspective. And "legal endorsement of willful ignorance" should be self evident given the implications of such a stupid law. Does that provide you with greater clarity?
Explain. sorry but unless you changed it I don't see how re-reading it would do me any good. constitutional rights are not suspended in academic environments. it seems like you're using evolution as a tool to try and stump out religion and that's exactly what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. And again thank God we have Trump. Assess the validity of their brainwashing with more brainwashing? Yep that's why we have the First Amendment. We don't need schools indoctrinating children if you can't teach the sciences without compelling people to "asses their brainwashing" (denounce their religion) not only should you not be a teacher but you should also be fined possibly imprisoned for violating someone's constitutional rights. I'm sorry you have such a problem with our constitution but it was put there in place to stop this exact thing. Well according to what you said just above it is actually about interfering with the religion. You want them to assess what you call brainwashing. That's interference. And if you don't want religious beliefs in your academic realm this isn't the country for you. Because again we have the First Amendment. we have the freedom of speech. If instructors are discussing issues that involve someone's religious beliefs, then they have every right to discuss it. I don't see how the state is promoting it you haven't made that case.
Fair enough Okay so your perspective is essentially because you don't like religion the First Amendment shouldn't apply. Fair enough I disagree. But I don't think we can reconcile that that was the only thing left is to agree to disagree.
