response 89 of 432:

Feb 6 19:24 UTC 2006

Re #85: "Crusaders" seems no worse than any other violent-imagery school
mascot. If you're objecting to violence, or wanton violence, I can sympathize,
but the only mascots I've seen that haven't been like that have been at
Christian schools (except for one that my high school geology teacher and quiz
bowl coach told me about -- the "Banana Slugs").

response 91 of 432:

Feb 6 19:30 UTC 2006

btw the ACLU protects religious freedoms, because those re protected in the
bill of rights of course.  The ACLU has in the past represented groups like
the Mormons when states passed laws that infringed on their rights to practice
their beliefs.  In fact I know aclu members who are devoutly religious.

response 93 of 432:

Feb 6 19:34 UTC 2006

There are no scientific data supporting "intelligent design" so why even 
consider teaching it in science courses? (The answer is obvious - to bring 
in religious doctrine, as unscientific as it is.)

Evolution is taught in science classes with full attention to its 
uncertainties - its *scientific* uncertainties. 

response 95 of 432:

Feb 6 19:38 UTC 2006

"Crusader" specifically refers to a Christian fighting against infidels,
primarly Muslims.  You might as well have a team named "The Pogroms";
that's no worse than any other violent term, right?

response 97 of 432:

Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006

Re #990: Jon writes "And in English classes everywhere students are asked 
to critically analyze the language."

Not in the sense of bringing it into question. The only "analysis" done in 
English classes is of grammatical, syntactical and semantic construction, 
and their evolution (!).

By the way, English IS a consequence of "intelligent design" - but the 
designers can be identified and themselves studied, unlike the "designer" 
in evolutionary "intelligent design".

response 99 of 432:

Feb 6 19:40 UTC 2006

Well as soon as anyone can tell me what a Chemic is... That would be the
name of my HS's rivals. We were the Chargers!

response 101 of 432:

Feb 6 19:44 UTC 2006

Re #91: I know that -- but its detractors (who I'm at least playing
devil's-advocate for) claim that it's blowing up the Establishment Clause up
into something to take our freedoms away.

The first few quotes to come up on Google, just to give you a feel for what
they're trying to say (no weight at the moment):

"The founders simply meant that the government could not set up a national
church or compel its citizens to attend one church over another or to even
compel them to attend church at all. It has nothing to do with a judge wearing
a cross or any other religious symbol on their lapel. It has nothing to do with
the Ten Commandments on a stone monument in front of a courthouse. But the ACLU
has twisted the establishment clause to try to make it say what it clearly does
not."

"In modern U.S. society, we've twisted the establishment clause of the
constitution to mean 'separation of church from state', or, more appropriately,
'elimination of any religious expression from any public venue'" (That was from
a blog that, based on this one taste, I'll leave a URL to:
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2005/11/mea-culpa.html)

"They have also twisted the Establishment Clause, which was intended to prevent
Congress from establishing an official state Church, as barring public nativity
scenes, or prayers before a a highschool football game."

"Liberal judges and lawyers have twisted the Establishment Clause to mean
freedom from religion. The Founders had in mind to guarantee freedom of
religion."

"It has twisted the Establishment Clause into a disestablishment clause, wholly
subverting original intent."

response 103 of 432:

Feb 6 19:48 UTC 2006

That's a pretty good sampling of half-truths from the ACLU's opponents.
Are there any honest ACLU opponents out there?

response 105 of 432:

Feb 6 19:59 UTC 2006

#94: You're the one who brought in "intelligent design". I'm not. All
I'm  saying is that *if* Evolution *is* true and every alternative
*isn't*,  then it sure doesn't look good for every attempt to offer a
chance to its  detractors to have their say *so that the students can
decide* to be  squashed by an ACLU lawsuit.

#95: Then why isn't "civil rights crusader" an oxymoron, then?
"Crusader"  means to me "one who uses even force to achieve a holy end."

#97: Richard brought up English as a lowest-common-denominator, to be
used as a parallel to evolution. My point is that the Academy in France 
might, according to evolution's detractors, be a better parallel. 
Richard brought it up, not I.

#98: Many of evolution's detractors claim to be scientists and claim 
that evolution's backers aren't. Without laying *all* the data on the 
table *we can't tell* -- and that's *all* the laws the ACLU jumps on 
(the ones I've seen recently, anyway) have mandated.

102: So we've had a state church from the beginning, then? I think 
there's been a chaplain for the Congress since the beginning, and the 
Supreme Court begins (I've heard) with "God save the honorable Court!"

103: Like I said, that's the first few that Google popped up. On all 
sides you have to dig deeper.

#104: In the Islamic world they are taught one thing and not taught to 
investigate further. Here, we *used* to be taught to investigate. It 
seems to me that we are now being taught to take evolution as axiomatic 
fact and not investigate further -- your parallel can be made to work 
exactly in reverse.

response 107 of 432:

Feb 6 20:08 UTC 2006

you are only taught to investigate further because the schools are secular,
what the right wing wants is every one to go to parochial schools and such,
where they would only give lip service to the words "investigate further"

response 109 of 432:

Feb 6 20:16 UTC 2006

Right.  They are so afraid of ID that they don't even want to hear it 
mentioned.  Kind of like they think evolution is a straw house that 
will crumble under the slightest breeze.

response 111 of 432:

Feb 6 20:24 UTC 2006

Isn't it? Something that's assumed to be true henceforward but not given a
logically rigorous proof? In practice it's given even more special treatment
than Euclid's geometric axioms; you see non-Euclidean geometries mentioned as
possibilities all the time, but breathe a word of the possibility of something
outside of Evolution (with the capital letter) and you face the threat of a
lawsuit.