Logic and fact are inconsequential to true believers. It’s the Devil that has mislead you. Didn’t you know that?

/sarcasm.

The person who invents a sarcasm font will become a billionaire in a week.

@Rob1948 Of course.. Never confuse a true believer with facts.. they can not handle it.

I’m sure that there are private schools and established religious-based schools and parents who provide perfectly valid educational experiences. But, when their teachings about science are couched in a religious context, to the extent that they deny the evidence of evolution, or that the age of earth is between 6-7000 years ago, then I have a problem with that. And, when they use and teach from textbooks that claim that America is a Christian nation or that slavery was a form of immigration, then I have a problem with that too.

Make no mistake about it, textbooks that say those things exist and are being used to educate young minds. Maybe I have a narrow view, but those things are happening.

And, yes, you are correct. School boards do have a monopoly over the public school environment. As do state school boards. One only need look at the kerfluffel that develops at school board meetings when text books are discussed. You have two extremes (right and left) fighting over the content of textbooks. I disagree with the stances of both extremes. But, fortunately for me, this thread is only about the religious right’s attempts to control what our children are taught.

@Rob1948 Those books and types of teaching may exist but it is a leap of logic to say all private schools and homeschoolers teach those concepts.

@beenthere hmmm where did I say “all”?

the Supreme Court is headed in a more conservative Direction. Perhaps the satanic temple, who are essentially trolls to the religious right, can help

@Kojaksmom That's why we need a sane president who can appoint sane people to the Supreme Court.

@BestWithoutGods exactly! that's why the radical left, progressives and Democrats need to get their shit together and unite to stand against the opposition. Otherwise we'll put another Donald Trump or Evangelical to appoint another Supreme Court Justice.

That background, same as mine, did not affect what we were taught, with the exception of evolution. And, even then, our teachers made sure we were aware.

If Christians control school boards, what they will allow to be taught will be more likely to reflect strict church doctrine with respect to the age of the earth, among other things. History will reflect similar slants.

So, no. It behooves is to remain watchful.

@Rob1948 In my schools the word theory was heavily stressed when referring to evolution so as not to offend the student's parents.

@WonderWartHog99 Where I live, “theory” is an unacceptable excuse. Teaching it, if I rightly remember, was illegal here, at the time.

I only live about 60 or so mile from Dayton, TN. I assume you understand the relevance. If not, look it up.

@Rob1948 >Teaching it, if I rightly remember, was illegal here, at the time.

Although briefly under the Butler Act in 1925. This was followed by the Scopes "monkey" trial in which it was proven that evolution was not incomparable with Christian religious beliefs. At first Scopes (a substitute teacher) was found guilty and fined. Accounting for inflation, his $100 fine would be $1,400 today. However the court decision was overturned on a technicality, allowing the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools.

Because I used to be a substitute teacher, mentioning religious issues in public school kept me worried.

By the way, this:

I assume you understand . . . . If not, look it up.

. . . Says you don't know what you're talking about and aren't ready to explain it.

Do your own arguments. Don't expect other people to do it for you.

@WonderWartHog99 What a bunch of bullshit. I know damn good and well what the Scopes trial was about. I didn’t bother to explain it because that would be condescending if you knew what it was. It was about 2 or 3am when I made the comment and I’d not want to be fucking bothered with having to explain it and then check references to see if I made an error. I wanted to go to sleep, not spend another 20-30 minutes or so to explain something that could be taken as condescending had I explained it. Get over yourself.

The Butler Act was repealed in 1967, not much earlier as you implied. That would make teaching evolution ILLEGAL while I was still “in school” as it were. I graduated in 1966. [en.m.wikipedia.org].

@Rob1948 >The Butler Act was repealed in 1967, not much earlier as you implied.

I didn't say when it was repealed. Once the courts have decided a law can't be enforced, repealing the same law is only for political effect. I'm certain there's thousands of laws on the books struck down by the courts yet stay on the books.

I'd like to point out that when you MAKE A PUBLIC RESPONSE, I won't be the only person reading it, you old sleepy head.

@WonderWartHog99

1. No, you did not say it ended in 1925 nor did I say you said that.

2. Note the two spots (in the first image I circled) I circled... pretty strong implication, by you, about how quickly it was ended, particularly since you implied I was wrong in stating it was still law when I was in school. Also, note that you said the state ruling cancelled the Butler Act relatively soon after the trial (more on that later).

3. Repealed is not cancelled by court ruling nor ruled unconstitutional. Federal courts ruled such laws (against teaching evolution) unconstitutional in 1968, one year after the Butler Act was repealed by the state legislature.

4. Perhaps you should check your facts before you call someone out. You’ve made repeated mistakes because you were so sure you knew more than me. You may be smarter than I, but at least I know how to check facts. You apparently, being so sure of yourself, think you don’t need to check your facts. A shame that. You had multiple chances and missed out.

5. Speaking of which, your reply to me was condescending. Your tone came across as superior and insulting, calling me ignorant. It was personal.

Perhaps you should check your tone. My reply to you was made because I was angry. I wouldn’t change a word of it. It was direct but not personal. And, for the record, I may be old but that isn’t for you to say or point out.

And, as noted above, perhaps you should check your facts before you call someone out in a public forum. (3 above and 6 below)

6. Something else you said: “the Scopes ‘monkey’ trial in which it was proven that evolution was not incompatible with Christian religious beliefs.... However the court decision was overturned on a technicality, (emphasis mine) ALLOWING THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION IN TENNESSEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.”

Three points: a) it would come as a huge surprise to many Tennessee residents that evolution was compatible with Christian religious beliefs. In fact, that would still surprise many Christians because not only do they not believe that but the court decision in the Scopes trial was about whether teaching evolution was legal in Tennessee or not. The trial was not about the compatibility of evolution and Christianity. Not even close. B) the guilty verdict was overturned on a technicality. And, c) the Tennessee Supreme Court UPHELD the constitutionality of the Butler Act. So, until 1967, it WAS NOT allowable to teach evolution in Tennessee.

Thanks for the opportunity to set facts straight in this public forum.

@Rob1948 >You may be smarter than I . . .

Gather 'round boys! I've met another confused soul.

>. . . but at least I know how to check facts.

You didn't start out that way. Instead you'd said "Teaching it, if I rightly remember . . . "

That implies "I'm not too sure about this but let me babble on anyway."

The big deal is when one makes public post, you're addressing the public. That includes people that have no idea what you're talking about. Therefore it's appropriate to give some background.

I may be old but that isn’t for you to say or point out.

Honey child, I've claimed I'm so old I've dated God's mom. However just to keep the arm candy baffled other times I say I'm a mere young innocent. Keep 'em guessing.

Considering that for most of human history people died before they got to be 30, anyone by historical standards made it past 30 is in geezer city.

My current impression is I'm dealing with a hyper sensitive little soul who's easily offended. While the earth surface was cooling, plugging in the modem meant you were the new guy and were going to get your ass roasted until you were accepted by the snarling masses on line.

Now getting offended is treated like something special. It's not.

@WonderWartHog99

Nothing but another personal attack coupled with your inability to admit most if not all of your “facts” were wrong.

That is pretty much all one needs to know about you.

@Rob1948 That is pretty much all one needs to know about you.

That you've said I'm smarter than you. The terror! The horror!

@WonderWartHog99 Hang on to that if you want. Smart or not, you made so many factual errors in this thread that you’ve put a lie to that.

Oh, and that is another factual error on your part. I didn’t say you were smarter than me. I said “you may be smarter” than me. There is a significant difference between the two statements.

@Rob1948 All of that is based on " if I rightly remember. . . . " Now go look it up.

I'm stealing this from the #1 cat trick: made you look!

@WonderWartHog99

I never denied saying that.

But, if my saying “if I rightly remember” is your excuse for your getting the facts about the Scopes trial wrong; about teaching evolution in Tennessee wrong and the Butler Act wrong, among other things, and refusing to acknowledge it, then go for it.

@Rob1948 > if my saying “if I rightly remember” is your excuse for your getting the facts about the Scopes trial wrong;

Wrong again. It's my excuse for making you look it up.

@WonderWartHog99 well, aren’t you just special. Other than that. I don’t believe you, though you won’t care. I’m OK with that too.

@Rob1948 Why, I'm so wonderful it's disgusting to give the details; amazingly amazing yet modest about it.

@WonderWartHog99

Whatev...

@Rob1948 Fur sure, fur sure.

@WonderWartHog99

Funny. I don’t.

@Rob1948 Sentence fragments strike again!

It’s a cycle.

I generally use the sentence "empty box of rocks" in any case it's not looking good.

I look to European nations as an ‘out’ for my children. They’d be understood and appreciated. If the USA continues to digress into primitive bickering religious factions, the brain-drain will begin ~

I’ve come to the conclusion that the only people who will be breeding soon will be the low intelligent and the devoutly religious. Better educated women are not having children until much later, sometimes they leave it too late and only have one or none. The gene pool of the more intelligent will eventually die out, and we’ll have a world populated by morons....but by then we will have fucked everything up anyway!

one day we're just going to be breeding organisms dumber than a box of hammers?

That day was long time ago. Why they can't even tell decent lies here in South Carolina.

Just like more and more extremely conservative Republicans aren’t winning local and state elections. Right?

Think, for one. Vote for candidates that have no intention of turning our schools into brainwashing centers.

@Rob1948 or at least skip the spin cycle.