Separation of Church and State? (Page 3)

Ummm..... no.  Not really.

String theory  has all the trappings of science.  It's based on advanced math, supported by a decent percentage of experts in the field, and so forth.  And just because it's not yet proven doesn't mean it won't be.  The place it's in right now is the place where plenty of science's most rigorously-tested theories had once been.  However, in the place where it is right now, it's not a scientific theory.  It is part of the scientific process, though.

ID has none of that.

I think it is clear to most people that advocating for one religion over another in a school system is wrong. Whether or not religion should be taught at all is a little ethically grayer. I would be a little miffed if my kids came home with a flyer like the OP described.

However, the simple fact of life is that a majority of people are religious in some degree.  Furthermore, a major tenant of most religions is to spread their message. I just don't see things like this going away without a major 1984-esk change in the way schools are run. If the religious organization could not get the school to distribute the flyer, the kids of the parents running the organization would. Religious teachers will also buck authority sometimes, and distribute materials or teachings. It is just not going to go away anytime soon. 

I would just take this as a wonderful opportunity to learn what your kids are thinking about religion, and have a discussion about their thoughts. You may be able to steer your children in one direction or another about religion for awhile, but in the end they are going to decide on their own what religion means to them. Teaching them to think logically is probably more important than worrying about exposure to one religion or another at an early age. 

I didn't meant to hijack the thread to get into an discussion about what is, and is not, science. However, at one time or another, various theories about the origin of the universe were at the forefront of scientific thinking.  Currently, I think M-theory is considered to be the prime candidate. However, M-theory is an evolution of earlier string theories that have, for one reason or another, been discredited.  M-theory hasn't been proven, and may never be proven (according to a friend of mine who is a physicist and believes M-theory to be true).

ID seems to be a theory (defined as a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) that is used to explain something that cannot, as yet, be explained - the origin of life.

My earlier point in comparing ID to string theory was to illustrate that whether one, or both, are science is highly dependent on your point of view.

BTW, I have no dog in this fight.  I just like to stir the pot.

Did someone seriously compare Intelligent Design to String Theory?

In terms of the Scientific Process, ID is not a theory.  It is, at best, a hypothesis that does not have any testable parameters around it.  Better yet, it is more closely related to conjecture.  And there is no way for it to move past this as, again, there are no testable parameters around it.  Nor is it observable.

No, they shouldn't.  You want to post a flyer on a message board, or put a whole stack of them out in some common area for kids to pick up, fine.  But why would you expect the school to be your own personal post office?  If you really have to get your flyer in to the hands of every student, then get a student directory, buy a buttload of stamps, and start mailing.

Really.... So you just go the entire opposite direction.  Zero tolerance type of attitude.  School is just a place for kids to be taught English, math, and science. 

They did. I am wondering what high school is teaching string theory? I remember taking some Honors level physics classes in college, and being taught that basically it was going to be beyond the scope of what we would be able to understand. Maybe this is at Dr. Xaviers School for Gifted Youngsters?

Oh, what a world we live in!

We need to nurture and protect the young

Absolutely! That is what I want my kids to learn in school. I want their value system to come from their mother, myself, our families, and whatever religious institutions we choose to associate ourselves with (or not).

What about sports?

And art?

And music?

Should religious studies (similar to a history class) count?

Or just R,R,& R?

It was service the schools provided to local youth athletic organizations. Flyers went home regularly for all sorts of community related events though I don't recall ever seeing religious or church based notices. Maybe the Christmas bazaar at the local Catholic Church but I may be mistaken on that. FWIW, this town had no non-Chrsitian churches or houses of worship. Should schools not be involved in the community? The tax paying members of that community fund the schools so why shouldn't the schools support those who pay them?

The school did not produce the flyers, only distributed them. In fact, they even had one day a week designated for flyers to be distributed so parents didn't have to root through backpacks every day. Those things can get pretty gross. I must have had a half dozen reams of paper come home with my two kids over the years. 

Is that a flying helicopter cat in the background?

Sorry, I think I was too literal. Yes, I would like my kids to get sports, art/music, history, and maybe a comparative religion class. But the priority needs to be on skills that enable them to be competitive in a technology-based society. My oldest went to a technical school for culinary arts, which enabled him to enter a top college for the same subject. My youngest is studying engineering in an 'engineering academy' at his high school. Very different curricula, but both are skill-based educational programs.

The point I was trying to make is that their moral and spiritual education is equally important, but that is the role of parents, not schools. I know the argument can be that many parents do not take this role seriously and the schools have become a poor surrogate for moral education. I don't have a good answer for this, it is a major problem facing society, especially in inner city schools.

I agree with you.  Just making certain.  Because I do know of some individuals that don't think the arts, ANY arts, should be taught as it is a waste of time and that they should only be taught "Practical" knowledge.  Thanks for the clarification. 

I actually agree with you here.  My beef is that I feel the schools do teach and influence my kids on the moral, political, and anti-religion level way too much.  But there's no such thing as separation of the anti-church and state so the people on that side of the coin have free reign to indoctrinate my kids and I not only have to teach my kids at home or at church, but I also have to unteach them what they learn in school.

Kids learn so much more than what is in a text book.  Younger kids especially.  They learn how to work in groups and do many other social activities with people their own age.  They get alot just from the diversity of the students in their class (if it exists).

The school was obviously not telling any of them to follow a certain religion.  It was a flyer.....  The backlash on this is the very reason that many Christians feel persecuted. On both sides people get very defensive on this type of thing, and they feel they have to go on the attack. If everyone could just be reasonable this would be simple. For example, an offer to attend something is OK while saying that you're going to Hell if you don't get to church is not OK.

Right now, our school system can't even seem to teach the 3 Rs. This country continues to slide back compared to other countries. We are far behind in public education, but excel at higher learning.

When the school system can teach the fundamentals, perhaps then we can discuss things beyond that... until then, what's the point?

What these discussions turn into is that both side want public education to teach a child value systems, life learnings, and more. I'm sorry, that is what parents are for, the church, the Scouts, extra cirricular activities, and so on.  Since no one can agree to what value system to teach, then it needs to not be the job of the public school system to teach such things.