The key is, while most will hide behind altruism, that they don't want you to have a choice. Choices, reasoning, thought are contrary to dogma, theocracy, and the hive that will spew if this bullshit keeps happening in more states. But of course, we will all be more enlightened, and saved.

True freedom means not having any subject imposed upon you so I suppose without going into the practicalities or impracticalities of choosing to have or not to have an education a fairer system could possibly be designed along those lines. Otherwise we are all slaves to some belief or other. Children have no choice about being born yet we impose all our cultural aspects on them as if we have the right and they have none; yet we are responsible for their arrival not them. I feel there is a sort of contradiction in this.

That is completely untrue. The liberal states on the coasts all pay far more in taxes than they receive from the federal government. Which is what you would expect, wealthy New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, the Bay area all contribute much more in taxes than is spent.

The South receives far more than it pays for several reasons. One is that a lower proportion of the population is educated and there are fewer well paid jobs. But the main reason is that industries like oil and gas get massive tax writeoffs that allow the old money 1% to avoid paying much tax at all.

The effect is even more clear when you look at politicians who blather on about government subsidies. Bush made his money in a crooked land deal where the state gave the baseball team he was part owner of a massive and unnecessary subsidy to build a new ball park. They also received the ability to use eminent domain to 'buy' land from others near the stadium for 20 cents on the dollar. Cheney made his money from a company, Halliburton that gets 80% of its revenues from government contracts.

---

Lurker wrote: no. no and well um, no. there is no proof of any kind that creationism occurred..it can barely be considered a theory. and re-naming it "intelligent design" doesnt fly either. give me one shred of evidence and ill consider it..till then i rank creationism right up there with santa.
.
That was a perfect answer but I kept reading. Many good answers. Then I found another keeper. Lo and behold, it was also from Lurker.

No, no, a thousand times "NO!"

My response may go a little above and beyond the scope of the question asked but here goes. I’ll probably get raked f for saying this but I give a strong YES creationism should be taught in school. Does it have to be taught in a science class? Not really. However, in some way shape or form it should be a mandatory class taught to all students. Why shouldn’t they be presented with the facts that of both and allowed to draw their own conclusions? Before they taught the scientific method it was “Creationism” that was taught in school. We are left at a serious disadvantage by waiting to the last minute to teach creationism to the youth of this country. No matter what you believe creationism is a valid theory.

Do you still think that Big Bang is still a theory?
Even after the final proof of Higg's particle in a lab by constant research of over 7,000 scientists for over 2 years at a cost of $ 10 Billions?
If the big bang is still a theory for you, well I can certainly say it is no more a theory for a vast majority of scientists all over the World now.
Yep, there was no one when Big Bang took place. No one existed materially before Big Bang, not even the concept of God.
But has anyone seen the Creator?
Surely a big NO for that too.
And if we do not teach about the creation of this universe, sun, stars and moon, how are we going to satisfy the yearnings of young growing minds?
Teach them, make them learn and once they learnt, they will investigate themselves one day what holds truth and what is falsehood.
Leaning is first step to investigation.

The "big bang", evolution, and relativity are still technically theories but there is such a huge amount of anocdotal evidence supporting them that to still doubt them is unwarranted. Creationism could actually fit into the scientific model but still should not be taught as there is no factual evidence supporting it at all.
Science is best at telling us how the univers functions, religion is a philosophical attempt at teaching us why we exist. It should be left for adults to study at their leisure, not drilled into children at public schools

---

I know what Love is.

This is in agreement with my point. What I said was "It (creationism, the subject of the thread) should be left for adults to study at their leisure, not drilled into children at public schools. If I had meant both science and religion I would have said they, not it.

That said, I do feel a parent has the right to teach their own children whatever they feel is proper about religion. Is there not a place in their life for something other than science? And who better then their parents is qualified to determine what values they should be taught inside their home?

---

I know what Love is.

I am going to get a ton of shit for this but I really dont care. I strongly believe that it should be at least mentioned in biology class. I as a Christian student had to learn evolution so as a respect for those who think evolution is a ton of bull shit or that its heavenly inspired (or what ever the student believes in) should be stated that there are other opinions on how everything came into being. Also if in English class we study exerpts from the Bible Koran and mythology why cant it be suggested in science class? I personally want to become a Biology teacher and this is something that i will have to deal with on the daily basis. And I have taken MANY science class and I still believe in God.

It is funny that many public schools have courses in Islam but not allowed Christianity.I have no problems with any religion being taught in schools it might open an awareness that we don't have now

Teaching of any religious belief in schools should not be allowed.
Schools are meant to impart KNOWLEDGE, NOTHING BUT KNOWLEDGE.
And religious mythologies are not knowledge.

Ummmmmm? No, it's idiotic.

LOL. I've thought that since the day it was raised.