Faith Schools Should be Banned

I would like to point out what you point out as a blatant contradiction was compatible because they both address different aspects of learning and accepting. By saying a person's ultimate truth is something that they believe. What I mean by saying this is I may believe with all my heart that I have a pet dog, and whether that is true in reality or not, I "know" it is true because it is what I believe. This can be seen because all religions "know" that they are true, and that others are wrong, most of the times with no evidence for their position. As for learning about different worldviews and religions, it is very compatible and beneficial, because it is detached. While learning about a certain religion while not identifying as a part of it, you are able to examine it with a discerning eye that a loyal believer in that religion may not be able to. So you see, the belonging to a religion puts on a veil of alternate truth on the believers mind, while studying their religion from a detached standpoint can prove to be a very educational and interesting topic. Now, onto the other topics as discussed with the public education system. The "Evolutionary theory" is fact just as much as gravity and the heliocentric nature of our (or any) solar system. They are all theories, because they have an enormous amount of evidence supporting them, but you cannot actually see it occurring. "Fallacies" that are found within the evolutionary theory are simply components that are twisted to fit one's personal agenda, or to become compatible with someone's religion. Don't you think the theory of gravity or heliocentric universe would be attacked if it directly opposed the majority of modern religion? All of these theories especially the latter, are "proven' using high-scale mathematics and observation. "evolutionary theory" is based on observation of change over time, and the mathematics to show how long these changes take place. If all of these theories are based on the same type of reasoning to discern authenticity, I conclude, they are all under the same amount of risk if religious groups find fault in them Morals... I do have morals, and yes, I do believe that make a greater society. The fact that religion gives people things to and to not do is none of my business as long as it doesn't effect me negatively. You say that religion gives reason for why these rules should be followed, but it should go without saying that there are valid reasons for governmental laws as well. At least with laws from the government you can see the punisher, and not simply "believe" that you will receive punishment from some supernatural entity. Mankind, as well as every other species has a sense of "right and wrong", anything that is good for their species would be considered moral. This is why animals are not constantly killing their own species, as humans say they would do if their religion didn't keep them in line. Also, I would like to bring up there can only be a very small portion of religions that are true if any at all, due to the exclusivity shown in most of them. This meaning that the majority are man- made decisions are fallible, so these religions must also be fallible. With this in mind, the majority of religions have very similar moral codes, and most of them if not all, are false. I would say that this does indeed give weight to the face that humans, and other species have a type of moral awareness. You claim that it somewhat undermines the validity of the evolutionary theory because the naturalists endorsed it in it's early stages of becoming a respected idea. The fact that this was a part of their "religion" does not lessen (or augment) it's authenticity, it simply shows that different religions have different opinions. The consideration of people's personal views are irrelevant, because their subjective view of reality is detached from the true objective morality. Yes, you are correct in saying that the layout of a cell, and many others scientific wonders are brought to light within these institutions. But that is because they are not incompatible with the religions, and sometimes are used to show the complexity of the world, and why their religion must be true because of it. Te reason that the naturalistic universe is explained in public education is because it is the only type of information that is held with a significant amount of evidence. Religion cannot be taught as fact because, it simply is not, or if it is it simply is not plain enough to convince anyone it is, or even which one it is. Do you really think it is indoctrination if it is all fact, and heavily supported theories? I can't seem to make that connection because of the amount that the evidence changes for the different sides. I would like to say expelling is not a step taken towards the teaching of intelligent design, as long as it isn't pointing to it as the truth, but only as a possibility that we do not have enough evidence yet to reasonably confront. Finally on the subject of right to indoctrinate. This is a very tricky topic because it treads thin waters between a child's rights and the rights of the parents to raise that child. I would say they present it as a possibility, but I realize that is to much to ask. I would find it hard to live a lie, if you are denying the possibility of alternate truth. To answer your first question: I do not think it is an interpretation of science, as much as it is what we know, and how it effects us. You could easily say the same thing about reading, math, language, or any other mandatory subject in the public education system, they are necessary because of the implications they hold for us and the rest of society. Example being, a large amount of current medicine was discovered using knowledge stemming from evolution, and adaptation to medicine through repeated attempts of vaccination.