Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (216365)	8/20/2007 9:10:53 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 793757

The only people who can legitimately enforce their opinion are the folks who say "We won't be doing any religious proselytizing - either FOR or against religion- in school". As per the bodies of con law that have developed, that is a pretty good accommodation to everyone- protecting all faiths from each other, and protecting the small minority of Godless heathens :-) It's a beautiful thing

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (216365)	8/21/2007 7:11:38 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793757

Just as someone who is a pacifist and an atheist can't enforce their opinion. They can teach 6 year olds about gay marriage - and no one was fired in this example: Children's book portraying homosexual romance and marriage -- read to second-grade class by teacher. At Estabrook Elementary School, Lexington, MA, March 24, 2006. (The same school that the David Parker incident took place.) The teacher had chosen the day's theme as "weddings" -- and this is the book she decided to read to the class. Here's the cover of the book, "King and King" that was read to second graders -- without any parental notification. As you can see, it's clearly written to normalize homosexual romance and "marriage" in the minds of very young children. ............ A few pages later (after a whirlwind courtship) the two princes are shown holding hands a their 'wedding'. ........... The book goes on to describe how they're not not just princes, but 'King and King." And just to rub it in, the last page shows a male-to-male kiss. The message for kids here is pretty clear. . . By the way, this book is published by Tricycle Press in San Francisco -- the same company that publishes "Who's in a Family", the book about homosexual parents that was in David Parker's son's class. massresistance.org There is a genre of books for young kids on the subject of homosexuality - Heather has Two Mommies; The Sissy Duckling; One Dad Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads; Emma and Meesha My Boy: A Two Mom Story; And Tango Makes Three (Roy and Silo, two male penguins, are "a little bit different." They cuddle and share a nest) and more - call up one of these on Amazon and go to the "Customers who bought this also bought" section. ---------------------------------- As for atheism - some folks in the biology teaching world think atheism is a key scientific fact: Teaching atheism at public expense? A commenter has asked me to provide evidence for the use of Darwinism to teach atheism in the school system at public expense. For that, I need only point to a curious episode in the mid-Nineties involving the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). for more than two years, from April 1995 to October 1997, the U.S.'s National Associaton of Biology Teachers (NABT) declared that "natural" does mean "without God" in their position statement on evolution, which stated that evolution is an "unsupervised, impersonal" process. And they fought any change. But finally, as Craig Rusbult reports, After first refusing to do so, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has dropped the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from its official description of evolution. The group's eight-person board of directors voted unanimously on October 11 to alter the wording of its two-year-old statement in support of teaching evolution — and the board did so just three days after it had voted unanimously not to make the change. Religion scholar Huston Smith and philosopher Alvin Plantinga had urged NABT to make the change, arguing that inclusion of the two words constituted a theological judgment about the nonexistence of God that went beyond the boundaries of empirical science. Not only Christian scholars such as Smith and Plantinga but the Darwin lobby itself had to get involved to make the biology teachers' organization back down. So accustomed were they to teaching atheism, one must infer, that it had never occurred to them that they might be challenged on the point. NABTs current statement has dropped all that language and merely insists that intelligent design theory and various types of creationisms are "are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid science curriculum." So we are back in familiar territory now: The biology teachers know, presumably by faith, that life forms do not show evidence of intelligent design. Hence evidence to the contrary is not really evidence. Therefore, they are justified in refusing to discuss it, even if it's the hottest question of the day ... I should stress that I think the current statement is a vast improvement. At least we can now focus on whether the NABT attitude to intelligent design is justified, not on trying to explain to them why they MUST NOT teach atheism at public expense. post-darwinist.blogspot.com