News Crew Attacked at Charter School

Any thoughts on this?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ce_1211249267&c=1

Apparently, this is a charter school that receives funds from the state of Minnesota and therefore must abide by the Department of Education rules. However, a newspaper article questioned the practices of Muslim communal prayer and religious teachings.

Makes you wonder what they have to hide. If the religious group wants to turn it into a private school and have the religious practices during the school day then go that route.

makes me wonder if they were teaching christianity would it be more acceptable---does it depend on which religion is taught to some??

floridafun wrote:makes me wonder if they were teaching christianity would it be more acceptable---does it depend on which religion is taught to some??

I was kind of thinking the opposite. If it was Christianity, there would be all kinds of cries for violations of separation of church and state.

i would be among those against either/any religion being taught in fed funded or state funded schools. i was not meaning a slam against christianity as a whole or even in general.
i was thinking about the efforts to push teaching creationism/id in schools..wonder whether the folks who espouse it are against this schools teaching of a different religion than they believe should be taught. that would seem contradictory to me. i should have clarified it in the original post!

I don't see how they can share a religious facility with anyone and be considered non-religious.

floridafun wrote:i would be among those against either/any religion being taught in fed funded or state funded schools. i was not meaning a slam against christianity as a whole or even in general.
i was thinking about the efforts to push teaching creationism/id in schools..wonder whether the folks who espouse it are against this schools teaching of a different religion than they believe should be taught. that would seem contradictory to me. i should have clarified it in the original post!

I totally agree. If creationism is to be taught as a theory in government-funded schools, then it should not be taught from the standpoint of any particular religion. Any school that conducts communal prayer, Christian or Muslim, should face the same scrutiny.

I noticed that the BSU Charter school on Broadway is having the cross and other religious markings removed from the building they are taking over.. I was happy to see that.

cardinal5150 wrote:I noticed that the BSU Charter school on Broadway is having the cross and other religious markings removed from the building they are taking over.. I was happy to see that.

They will burn in Hell.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:i would be among those against either/any religion being taught in fed funded or state funded schools. i was not meaning a slam against christianity as a whole or even in general.
i was thinking about the efforts to push teaching creationism/id in schools..wonder whether the folks who espouse it are against this schools teaching of a different religion than they believe should be taught. that would seem contradictory to me. i should have clarified it in the original post!

I totally agree. If creationism is to be taught as a theory in government-funded schools, then it should not be taught from the standpoint of any particular religion. Any school that conducts communal prayer, Christian or Muslim, should face the same scrutiny.

I don't see how you can ultimately teach creationism from any standpoint aside from a particularly religious standpoint. At the core of any theory not based in observable science is faith, spiritual faith. If Allah said "Be!" or if God said "let there be light," we cant constitutionally justify using my money to teach this business to our children... science teaches that those things that are unknown are unknown, creationism fills those gaps in with Allah breathing his spirit into animated bodies made of clay.

I agree that communal prayer, regardless of faith, deserves significant scrutiny to assure that is meets the requirements of the constitution. I am not opposed to groups of students that voluntarily pray... However there is a slippery slope of allowing the organization of such... as it's theoretically federal money that is lighting the room and subsidizing the lunches of those who pray... Further, it's difficult to objectively prove that these students are not given special favors or hindrances in their academic goals.

pez wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:i would be among those against either/any religion being taught in fed funded or state funded schools. i was not meaning a slam against christianity as a whole or even in general.
i was thinking about the efforts to push teaching creationism/id in schools..wonder whether the folks who espouse it are against this schools teaching of a different religion than they believe should be taught. that would seem contradictory to me. i should have clarified it in the original post!

I totally agree. If creationism is to be taught as a theory in government-funded schools, then it should not be taught from the standpoint of any particular religion. Any school that conducts communal prayer, Christian or Muslim, should face the same scrutiny.

I don't see how you can ultimately teach creationism from any standpoint aside from a particularly religious standpoint. At the core of any theory not based in observable science is faith, spiritual faith. If Allah said "Be!" or if God said "let there be light," we cant constitutionally justify using my money to teach this business to our children... science teaches that those things that are unknown are unknown, creationism fills those gaps in with Allah breathing his spirit into animated bodies made of clay.

I agree that communal prayer, regardless of faith, deserves significant scrutiny to assure that is meets the requirements of the constitution. I am not opposed to groups of students that voluntarily pray... However there is a slippery slope of allowing the organization of such... as it's theoretically federal money that is lighting the room and subsidizing the lunches of those who pray... Further, it's difficult to objectively prove that these students are not given special favors or hindrances in their academic goals.

But how exactly do you define "observable science"? Yes, we have found dinosaur bones and cave drawings that give us a glimpse of the past, and from that scientists have drawn conclusions and theories. But what we teach in schools is still theories. So let's say (and really I have no idea) that 70% of Americans believe evolution should be taught in school and 70% believe creationism should be taught - I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. If these numbers were right, what do you think makes it right to want your theory taught and not another theory that just as many people believe?

If you ask me, neither one really have a place in public schools, but that's another topic.

I should have used the term "observable data." By that I mean that a scientific theory is only a theory until observable data contradicts it. I think they are mutually exclusive... At the core of creationism is Allah, the clay and the word "Be"... we cant contradict or prove that with observable data.

Edit: I will agree to disagree, we all know where we are headed with this :-)

Markwes wrote:If you ask me, neither one really have a place in public schools, but that's another topic.

Mark, why does it matter if someone "believes" in science or not? Shouldn't they at least learn the skills it takes to utilize science? Even in the 12(!) years I spent in Catholic schools, we didn't skimp on science. That includes evolution.

See, here's my problem with why creationism shouldn't be compared to evolution. I'll avoid the obvious that evolution isn't just a theory, but an entire framework which many theories are built around. Instead, let's pretend that I'm reading a mystery novel. At the end of this novel is the resolution of the entire story. While we're reading the book, we make guesses based on evidence we have so far in the book. Those guesses might be based on misleading evidence or they might be based on relevant information. As we dig further in the novel, we might find that some of our guesses seem to be wrong and new guesses emerge. That's what science attempts to do in the real world, as I'm sure you can imagine.

However, let's say (and this is giving creationism much benefit of the doubt in my opinion) that someone steals a glance at the last page. Instead of the evidence truly lending itself to the finale, the author instead pulls a deus ex machina (har) at the end. Now, if that someone were to go back and read the book, do you think they would properly utilize the "scientific" method to guess the ending? Or do you think they would try and bend the evidence with respect to what they know the ending to be? All the bends, the dead ends, everywhere those theories lead us without telling it where to lead us, that is science.