Reply #183: so we'll agree to disagree...

[Robert Cooper]

"I do not think the state has ANY place in this. The role of the state is to stay out of religious differences. That's it. There is no majority right or minority right. If the state is sponsoring and funding public education, their place is easily protected by making sure that science is science, and religion is religion."

It would be simpler if science and religion could be kept separate. But that is not always possible. The Establishment Clause gives the state no power to control religion, let alone tailor it to suit the state's desires. Religion can be include or exclude any belief.

"The vast majority of christian faiths accept the bible as metaphorical. There are more than a billion catholics, more than 150 million of each, Baptists (non-fundamentalist), Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Luterans, and orthodox catholics who accept the basic tenets of evolution and cosmology. The RC church has issued written statements to the effect that their teachings are compatible with Darwin and the Big Bang. So, billions of christians accept that science is science and faith is faith. Now, add in the billions of folks of faith who are non-christian and those who do not ascribe to any faith!"

Irrelevant. The EC does not talk of a "majority" of religions.

"There can be no negotiation with a minority that will not accept the same basic facts of science as the vast majority."

So you've nullified the Lemon test's protection of religion from being inhibited by the state? SCOTUS seems to think it's still valid.

There is nothing about a right being negotiated. Nothing about the size of the minority involved. Nothing about cooperating with the state and it's objectives in education. It's a blanket protection that the state will not inhibit religion, period.

"There is, for instance, nothing i can say that will dissuade them from believing in the literal nature of the bible, and nothing they can say to convince me it is anything other than allegory."

Nor any need for either to convert the other against their will.

"So, the state is not responsible for inserting the minority view into the world of science. Their place is to stay out of it completely."

That's right: neither promote nor inhibit.

"That is not only constitutional, but abjectly fair. No political body, from the federal gov't to the local school board, should attempt to validate any religous point of view, majority or minority."

And neither should they attempt to -invalidate- any religious point of view, majority or minority. The state must remain neutral to all religions.

"The simple out is to keep science science, and faith faith!"

Unfortunately this out is not available. Religious freedom means we each pick our own beliefs. The state cannot dictate those beliefs to us. There can be no guarantee that religion and science will be mutually agreeable.

Consider the cases of primitive tribes believing a camera would steal their soul. Can you measure a soul to their satisfaction to prove to them that their soul was not stolen? Some religious beliefs do not deal with reality through the scientific method. the religious "truths" and the scientific "truths" are mutually antagonistic.

"Hence, i reject your basic premise..."

Then we'll agree to disagree.