On 17 Feb, 22:51, starburst wrote:
John Savard thoughtfully opined:

in the same sense, from a First Amendment perspective,
*even when it is empirically valid*.

I am not just talking about the freedom of Creationists to speak. I am
talking about their freedom not to have their children indoctrinated
by their opponents. That *is* a valid complaint, although this is lost
in the debate over their demands to indoctrinate everyone else's
children.

They can always opt out of the system, John. But I agree with you in
principle.



You don't understand the difference between "edcuation" and
"indoctrination."

Sure he does. What you don't understand is constitutional law. On what
legal and constitutional grounds can you force someone to have their
children taught something that categorically disagrees with their
religion? Religion is constitutionally protected. Science and education
are not.

Indoctrination is what you get in church.

Whatever.

I know, "..here's a school that teaches science seperately from
religious studies. I don't agree with this, but I'll send my kids
there anyway". ??!
Send them to another school, just ask your priests for permission and
do it.
Or, educate them at home, or move to a fundamentalist state, you'll
love it.
jc