The 'push' is a reaction by Christians to the secular movement: it's part and parcel to the cultural wars. Over the years SCOTUS has taken to [mis] interpreting the establishment clause at the expense of the free practice clause. It used to be that public schools could *freely* lead students in prayer; they were *free* to likewise have an opening prayer at ball games; *free* to post the Ten Commandment at court houses...you get the idea.
Little or any of his was a problem till the secularists came along, and pushed first lol. So the Christians pushed back. It's the sort of thing you'll find in a healthy democracy.
First, we need to throw out the word "secular," here. It's not a secular movement. It's a movement of people of all religions AND the non-religious who are pushing back against Christian arrogance, hubris, bigotry and persecution.
The prayers, and you're quite right about them once existing in schools, at ball games, etc. What stopped that was two things. First, of course is the question: WHICH religion do we use for a prayer? Do we change it daily? Do we pick one a week? How do you make sure that you are, if it is a teacher leading students in prayer, that the teacher isn't leading them in a prayer that works for the religion of every student in the class?
There's good reason that led prayers were stopped, but there's no reason a school should be unable to set aside a few moments each morning for prayer, if a child chooses so to do.
As to religious symbolism, with the sole exception of headstones on cemeteries, I believe that none should permitted, period. Again, it has to do with not favoring one religion over another.
Remember the flap not too long ago about the Satanic Temple wanting to put a monument of Baphoment up in Oklahoma? That situation is exactly why A) Christians are getting a lot of stick and B) why anyone leading students in prayer is a bad idea.
And as if to point out exactly why it's a bad idea, Arkansas has risen to answer the question.Oklahoma ruled to remove all religious symbols from Capitol grounds, so Baphomet never landed in Oklahoma. Then Arkansas slapped up a law that says it's legal for privately-funded Ten Commandments monuments to be placed on Capital Grounds. So the Satanic Church send a letter of request to Arkansas requesting authority to pop Baphomet there, as well.
As if on cue, Arkansas Governer Asa Hutchinson explained exactly why state-sponsored religion, religious ceremonies and religious symbolism are bad ideas: "We don't want just every group putting a statue on capitol grounds," he said. "We want it to be exclusive..."
This was his justification for blocking both a Hindu statue and ol' Baphomet but not the Ten Commandments. And yet Christians continue to claim that they are under attack.
I would argue that the non-Christian movement is simply responding to centuries of pushing and persecution by Christians. It's certainly part and parcel of the culture wars, but that is one of the reasons non-Christians push back.
So yes, having a bit of an old pray with one's self, in ones own religious context, is grand and certainly should be permitted. But if someone is going to lead a prayer - especially in a school - where the only option is to not participate and thus be excluded (treated differently), then that's not cricket.
But it's not that it wasn't a problem until secularists came along. It became a problem when Christians decried a "war on Christianity" that didn't exist when they had been warring against everyone else for a long, long time.
As I've mentioned before, in my life I have known people from a great many religions. The only times (and it's been several) I have ever been told I was a bad person, or I was going to hell, or that I was "not in communion with God" or that I should be ashamed for my believes, it's been a Christian that's done it - and it's ALWAYS been unsolicited (I used to work in an area that had a lot of street corner preachers - who would wave the bible at people while using it to condemn them). This is why the "war on Christianity" nonsense doesn't wash.
The human government is by far and away the most ruthless and efficient killer. It's not even close.
Isn't that a bit of a straw man? It's not a question of who is better at killing than whom. It's a question that religion of all forms has been and is responsible for an incredible amount of evil in the world.
It can get you killed in a lot of places, but not in this Christian nation.
That's rather the point, isn't it? I've already mentioned once that attorney in California who believes that homosexuals should be put to death, because of his Christian faith. He is not alone, he's just the one who made headlines.
Then I would argue they should not teach abiogenesis in public schools. If there is compelling evidence in favor of the proposition that life can self-arrange [without DNA] out of lifeless matter I have yet to see it.
Or if they want to teach it, alternative *hypotheses* should be permitted out of fairness and so one side can't rightfully accuse the other of attempting to indoctrinate public school kids with their worldview.
That's the crux of the debate.
It is important to distinguish what we mean when we say "theory" or "hypothesis," and to understand what they mean.
A "hypothesis" is defined as a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
It is here that Creationism falls flat for the first time. Creationish might be a hypothesis if the word is accepted in its most general definition: a guess. But it absolutely does not belong being taught in a science class because it is not subject, and is not capable of being subjected to, the scientific method.
The Scientific method consists of certain steps: Study and characterize the problem, formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment to test the hypothesis, perform the experiment, and then analyze the results and compare them to the hypothesis.
Creationism is untestable, so it stops immediately after the second step. That makes it non-science and places it squarely outside of appropriateness for a science class.
On the other hand, the theory of abiogenesis has a firmer foundation in science, and it is a theory being tested constantly.
At the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, for example, microbiologist John Sutherland discovered that it was, in fact, possible for simple molecules to get themselves together in order to create the building blocks of life on their own and without interference. From there, he moved on to make more discoveries and has found two of four self-replicating components that make RNA, which forms the chains necessary to begin the process of populating a planet with flora and fauna. (See the abstract of the paper HERE (sorry, not going to give my login information to anyone LOL. ))
What they are testing, essentially, is that the self-replicating components exist which can in fact create RNA, and that it was this RNA, not DNA, that began life. It is completely abiotic in generation, and it's not the only experment being done. There are multitudes of scientists working on this problem, under scientific conditions.
The experiments on the theory are being done. They are testable, verifiable, and follow scientific method. This is why abiogenesis is appropriate for discussion in a science class.
The problem is with the "crux of the debate," because there really shouldn't be one when it comes to what is and is not science.
Creationism is an untestable, unscientific guess that is incapable of being proven or disproven because its existence as an idea is based entirely and inseparably in belief without evidence. It is religiously-based non-science and therefore inappropriate to be taught in a science class.
Abiogenesis (and by extension evolution) are testable, knowable theories capable of being proven or disproven because they are subject to the scientific method and are being subject to expriements all the time. It is a testable and tested scientific theory that is appropriate to be taught in a science class.
