>Not what I recall. I recall answering your question (two - and I also mentioned the notion of a purer genetic pool as well, plus the length of lives lived at that time) and recall that you were the one who begged off of the discussion as you were "tired" and needed a break.

Yeah right, the #558379. The longer it gets, the more I feel I should write in response, and the more I postpone the reply, and then it eventually got stale. Still, I fail to see how "Bible has never been intended to be comprehensive; only a genealogy of the blood line of Christ" fails to mention any other children by Adam and Eve, and if the "fact" that god created them is so important, why is no other creation of humans mentioned anywhere else? Not important for the story? Did not take part in Christ's bloodline?

Anyway, I'll try to make this shorter by skipping some of what you answered to others.

>>>>However, the teachers and principal and other adults in a school are authority figures - when they say "We're now going to sing 'Silent Night'," the child whose religion prohibits him from singing it and who simply is uncomfortable singing it is put into an unreasonable position. "Teacher says to do this; Mom and Dad say not to. What do I do?"
>
>Right, and so now the "authority figures" are influsncing children to be afraid of what others might find offensive.

To be afraid? C'mon, outside religion there's no big force which threats you with eternal punishment, and there's nobody to tell you that 99% of what you do is a sin. It's called courtesy, i.e. as much as a teacher in a class with some Jewish and/or Muslim kids will not tell them to eat pork, and will also not try to tell everybody to eat fish on Friday, the same teacher should simply tell the children that "this is a Christian song, so whoever wants to sing along... next time we'll do an interesting Zen story" etc. Not pretending it's "this is how we all do things around here", but just saying what it really is.

> This cuts both ways I'd think in that you can support (via your presumed authority in the mind of a child) the notion that God is somehow 'dirty' and we can't talk about that here.

"Dirty"? No, church is a business, faith is a person's private matter, the only dirty thing is recruitment of members, which, IMO, includes subtle techniques such as inclusion of folklore etc.

> Again, I see this as just a way for the minority to tyrannize the majority and I say that if they can use "offense" as their justifiction so can I. Simple really.

OK, next time I tell you that you should not try to get a state employee to take sides with one of the points of view (religious, antireligious, agnostic), you have carte blanche from me to feel offended and use that in the dispute.

>>What question? "Why didn't the teacher tell us to sing 'Silent night'"?
>
>?? Maybe they didn't want to? I don't quite understand your point.

Rewind, re-read, requery() and try to understand. On one hand, we had a kid which asked "teacher told us to sing this, parents said I shouldn't, what do I do". Now if teacher didn't ask them anything of the kind, or applied a diversity approach ("and now kids, we'll learn a few winter songs from several cultures"), what's the supposed question your kid should ask? The one quoted above is the best I could come up with.

>>OK, why would the inclusion of attributes of one religion in the curriculum be fair, and why would the request for not pushing such content on the others be unfair?
>
>No, why is the inclusion "unfair".

Because it's one religion only, and the non-religious approaches are also omitted. And it's all coming from a state employee we both pay.

> That's the issue some are raising. Why take the approach of teaching nothing rather than something on the mistaken notion that it is better?

Judging by the state of education around here, some would say it already happened :).

> "Pushing" is also a two way street. I am offended at all of the stupid existentialist thought being "pushed" on the children in schools and because I am offended Iit should stop; using this 'logic'.

Content pushing should be at least a two way street, if not more than two. If kids are presented with one point of view only, how can they make an educated judgement? In socialism we were at least taught about the full history of human thought, including Christianity and Islam (though I did object to total absence of Eastern thought). Actually, the our philosophy professor was a graduate priest; he had to take a few more exams to graduate philosophy.

> I also object to Darwinsim being pushed as fact when in fact it is to this day totally unproveable and those who are "in the know" are constantly moving the goal posts. I will not argue the issues but those are the facts.

The nice thing about the science is that the goals are moving - you achieve some, prove or abandon one theory, and create the next version thereof. No dogma and nothing sacred (pardon the pun). While some of the extrapolations of evolution are unproven (like the "missing link" thing), it works quite well otherwise. Again, there's no finite truth in science. Its only constant is permanent development and change. Even logic may be replaced with something better someday.

>Really? Well, you should see the indoctrination that goes on here all the time. Try going to a liberal arts college and starting a conservative club for example. That is if you want to see your old friend socialism alive and well.

At college age, students are rather mature, and already entitled to their own opinions. If they're allowed to carry guns, I'd presume they're also allowed to judge for themselves. Besides, they are tomorrow intellectual elite of the nation - and if you don't trust their judgement, then what? Will you try to replace them?

Besides, the whole idea of socialism was grossly polluted by what was happening in the Eastern block and China. The whole thing needs a new theory. Marx expected socialism would win in developed countries first - and it won in the half-feudal Russia instead, which caused a great detour, without ever finding the original road. If you want a good socialism, you have to do it yourself, and maybe these students are a good germ of some future socialism-the-american-way. Even if it happens, I don't expect it in the next fifty years or so.

>>If your faith forces you to push its content on others, you are asked only to abandon the pushing.
>
>In the name of free speech? <g>

No, in the name of you being a teacher, being paid by us, or an ABC speaker which has all the benefits of free speech while sitting in front of the camera and reading the news.

> You're not obligated to listen but you want me to stop speaking

If I'm a student in your class, I'm told by pretty much everybody that I should listen. And as a parent of a nine-year-old and a taxpayer (albeit not a citizen) I'd prefer the teacher to stay with the curriculum, and not with any religion's agenda; teaching the contents of the curriculum is what they're paid for, as much as the ABC speaker is paid to read what is written for him.

>I won't do that no matter how uncomfortable you are. Sorry.

And I'll petition the school boad to get someone unbiased instead of you. Sorry.

>I am not asking you to stop speaking what you believe am I? No, I am not but you don't see the double standard here????

I see the double standard: whenever we start speaking about what a teacher should do and what not, you get started about free speech. I was teaching for five years, and I did take good care not to say what I think each time. My freedom of speech was limited by my job: my speech was a tool I used in my work, and I had a job to do. If some sorts of speech would deter the effects of my work, I had to avoid them.

>My faith, BTW, doesn't 'force' me to do anything whatsoever. Nothing at all.

No peer pressure? What would happen if you didn't visit your church for a couple of years, and/or didn't give a dime to it?

>I want to share it but I'm not going to waste my time with those who don't want me to. You know the old proverb, "Thrtow a rosck into a pack of dogs and the one who yelps is the pne you hit." Well, why do you keep responding if it's of no matter to you? <g>

Scientific curiosity. I'm trying to learn how a believer's mind works, how do they keep up with the discrepancies etc. Besides, this is a nice intellectual pastime, and I have the habit to engage in such disputes once in a while. Last time it was several years ago, and most of the participants were neophytes. Talking with someone who grew up with faith had to be different - another intellectual challenge.

>Yes, you have every right to ask that the State not "serve" up a religion. ABsolutely! That's far different than asking those in the school to stop expressing themselves. For example, not allowing kids topray at commencement when they want to.

I endorse the idea of three minutes silence. Even non-believers could use the time to rethink a few things; for those who believe prayer or meditation would help, they're equally welcome.

>>Exactly, but I don't see where Tamar is forcing you to do anything.
>
>By not allowing my kids to sing what they might want to sing for example?

There's a difference between "they want to sing" and "teacher told them to". A good solution would be to have the teacher ask them what they want to sing, and once they're done with that, teach them some they didn't know - from other cultures/religions. Diversity and "blossom of hundred flowers", as late comrade Deng said :).

>>So why don't they sing Hare Krishna in the school? The melody is equally simple and easy for kids to learn.
>
>Maybe there's not enough interest? I don't know.

How do you expect any interest for something they didn't have a chance to know about? Broaden the offer - diversity, again.

>>Right, they are not at the same level at all. Freedom of religion should include freedom from religion. How would freedom of religion be a real freedom if there was no optionbutton.caption="none"?
>
>But freedom from religion doesn't include freedom of religion, does it? That's the rub and what I am objecting to.

If A includes B, B cannot include A unless they are identical. Simple set theory. Freedom from religion is one option in the general freedom of choice, that's why I mentioned optionbutton. My view on freedom from religion is that anybody should have the freedom to have no religion at all, and should not be pressed to have one in any manner.

>>In that light, I still see singing Christmas carols as "some options are more equal".

>So, when you protect your wallet that means you empty it out? <g> Protecting the right to religious expression isn't the same as removing that expression Dragan.

Well, whoever steals an empty wallet won't be happy.
BTW, would you please stop putting words into my mouth? I didn't say I don't want the kids to sing "Silent night" in school, I said "I don't want the teacher to tell them to sing it", specially not without a single word of explanation, and with omission of any other sort of song at the time. There's a huge difference between "one of the songs for one of the various winter hollidays" and "the song we [all] sing for Christmas".

>Maybe when the Hare Krishnas produce some good Christmas music propel will sing it? *shrug* & <g>

I don't think they observe Christmas :)

>>OK, I'm an outsider here, not a citizen of the US, so it's none of my business. If I was, I'd probably feel a second-rate citizen, having no god. If accepting "In God We Trust" is mandatory for becoming a citizen, they'll probably never let me in. So much for diversity.
>
>If you choose to have no god that is your choice. However, I'd disagree based upon the notion that the highest passion of one's life is essentially their 'god'. It can be pleasure, position, power (you've probably seena lot of this in COmmunism) and so forth. It's kind of a issue of word definitions.

I'm not an one-liner, i.e. I can't name any single issue which could be described as my "god". Sorry for failing your definition :)

Still, you haven't addressed the above feeling that I'd be a second-rate citizen in a country which has "in God we trust" written so many million times all around the place. Sounds equally bad as when the Patriarch of Serbian Orthodox Church once wished "merry Christmas to all Serbs of Orthodox Faith" - left a bitter taste. Are other Serbs less Serbs if they are not Orthodox? Along this line, are Americans who don't to subscribe to "in God we trust" lesser Americans?

>Thanks for your time Dragan. You are definitely a first class guy.

My time is cheap nowadays. I wish I had a first class job instead. Thanks for the patience shown toward a notorious unbeliever - and, believe me, you're one of the few around here who knows how to spell "definitely" (to differ from "definately" which is a seperate issue :).