Where is my reasoning wrong here???
Certainly.
Nope.
Au contraire! If you base your religious ideas on false claims about the physical world, claims that are both contrary-to-fact and refuted by the evidence, then the mere existence of that evidence is what shows your ideas to be wrong. And when science classes present that evidence, it is not for the purpose of teaching that religious ideas are wrong, but rather because presenting and discussing the evidence is a rightful purpose of science education. Indeed, if not for the propaganda and grass-roots activism efforts of the creationist movement during the past four decades, most science teachers would not even be aware that there was anyone whose religious ideas are being challenged by the evidence. When the "creation science" campaign was gearing up in the 1970's and they were doing their travelling debate shows, most of the educators they suckered in were surprised that creationists even existed.
And it is plain as the pixels on your computer's display that if you base your religious ideas on false claims that run counter to the evidence, then the evidence will show those ideas to be wrong. It is not a case of opposing your religious ideas, but rather it is a case of the truth.
remember there is a clear purpose to why the state should make no establishment about religion. Simply so no faith is made over others and no faith is made under.
A excellent purpose.
That much is correct, though it leaves out that it cuts both ways. As James Madison pointed out in his
A Memorial and Remonstrance written a few years before he drafted the First Amendment, neither society nor government have authority over religion
and government must be kept free of interference from religion. He goes into much detail over that last part.
There is no need for the state or the church to interfere with each other.
As there is also a great need to keep them from interfering with each other.
Though not stopping the church from shooting itself in the foot with blatantly false claims cannot be misconstrued as interference, as you insist on doing.
Then the subject of origins comes up and the state teaches ideas that mean religious ideas are wrong.
Wrong. The state teaches science, which not only includes the evidence, but
requires presenting and discussing the evidence. Religion does not enter into it.
It breaks the separation. its teaching against religion in its foundations. its doctrines
Wrong. The state is
not violating the separation. The state is
not teaching against religion nor against religion's doctrines. The state remains neutral regarding religion.
If the church has chosen to teach religious ideas that are blatantly false, which is something that the state can do nothing about
and must not do anything about, then the church must bear the responsibility for having made that choice. The state's neutrality demands that the state take no action here.
Instead, you want the state
to break the separation and come to the aid of the church. The only way that the church can get away with teaching such blatant and outright falsehoods is if it can
suppress the evidence. You want the state to actively suppress the evidence, to bend to the will of the church. That is not separation. That is not neutrality. That
is religious establishment!
It should also be noted that "the church" being discussed here is not all religions, but rather a small set of minority Christian sects commonly (though not completely correctly) identified as "fundamentalists". So you want
all US inhabitants to be made to suffer at the hands of the state on behalf of a few extremist sects? It is to guard against precisely such tyranny that we have Madison's "great Barrier which defends the rights of the people", renamed decades later by his life-long friend, Jefferson, as the Wall of Separation.
So religion comes up to defend itself and its told CENSORED.
Bullshit! Er, I mean, Wrong!
First, by trying to get its religious teachings into the public schools, religion is not trying to defend itself, but rather is trying to
break separation. Their being blocked from getting their religious teachings into the public schools is not censorship, but rather necessary to
maintain the Great Barrier.
Furthermore, creationists are not being censored. They are quite free to present their false teachings in any number of public forums, which they have done very vociferously and with extreme zeal. They just may not require the state to present their false teachings for them, nor to aid them in the presentation of their false ideas.
Why/ Then told the state can't teach religion. right or wrong.
Well, the state is
not allowed to teach religion. That is why the state cannot act as an accomplice to religious sects' teaching their doctrine.
can't say its right. can't say its wrong.
Obviously, you are very confused. We are not. The state is
not allowed to teach religion. That is why the state cannot act as an accomplice to religious sects' teaching their doctrine.
Creationism answers YOU ARE TEACHING ITS WRONG.
Then creationism is lying through its teeth, yet again. It's been lying ever since it created "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the courts after Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) had led to the striking-down of the "monkey laws" that had been in place since the mid-1920's.
Science class teaches the evidence. The truth shows creationist claims to be blatantly false.
The solution is for creationism to drop its false claims and replace them with
truthful claims. Then creationism would have no need to fear and loathe the truth and would no longer need to resort to lies and deception.
Your banning is a second teaching since you claim the subject is about the truth of origins. A right and a left.
The subject is science. In astronomy, some cosmology may be covered. In biology, some abiogenesis may be covered. These subjects are covered in terms of "these are the current scientific ideas; much more needs to be discovered and worked out." As such, covering them in a science class serves a purpose in science education, that of learning about the prevailing ideas in science.
Religious mythology does not have a place in the science classroom. Presenting religious origin myths would serve no purpose in science education, since religious origin myths have nothing to do with the prevailing ideas in science, nor do they do anything to promote an understanding of science or of scientific ideas.
You should familiarize yourself with science education. A starting point could be the 1990 California Science Framework:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED325324.pdf . You may also wish to read California's Anti-Dogmatism Policy:
http://ncse.com/...a/voices/california-state-board-education .
The state therefore has a opinion on religious doctrines.
Yes. Officially, that opinion is one of strict neutrality, as discussed above.
Unofficially, there is something called "public religion", to which government office-holders proffer lip service and to which they seek to appear friendly. In the US, that public religion is predominately mainstream Protestant Christianity. Appeals to or the appearance of support for that public religion are often made in order to curry favor from the electorate; eg, invoke "God" in speeches, making sure to be publically observed attending church. Public religion is a dirty little fact of political life.
its pushing its opinion onto the kids etc.
Yes, though you have a distorted view of what that opinion is. Rather, it is the opinion that the Great Barrier, termed "the Wall of Separation", is needed to prevent Religion and Government from interfering with each other. That one of the principles that our nation was founded on is religious liberty, the freedom to choose and practice whatever religion we wish to and the freedom from any interference from the government because of that choice. That the Great Barrier is needed to ensure religious liberty for all citizens.
BTW, as you read the science education resources I cited above, you will find a statement of the purpose of education, with is to promote knowledge and understanding,
but not to compel belief. In stark contrast, the materials and curricula that creationists want included in the public school classrooms do not promote knowledge nor understanding and they strongly seek to compel belief -- we know that from actual cases of creationism entering the classroom.
Its brwaking the very law it invented in the 1900's.
That term "law" is here is a collective term for the entire body of law, which consists not only of legislated laws but also of court decisions -- mainly court decisions. And it did take a long time to build that body of law. One of the reasons why questions of religious establishment took so long to resolve was because of that very thing I mentioned above,
public religion, and the majority's feeling of entitlement to impose their own religious beliefs and ideas on the rest of the population. It took a long time to correct that situation.
But now you are arguing to reverse that correction. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.
And BTW, no, the state is not violating that body of law. OK, anti-separation politicians will try, but hopefully we can keep them from succeeding.
™ Version 4.2
(1)