>Some of Bertvan's posts seem off-point for the topics under discussion. The
>issue I've been trying to get ID folks to consider is the *fundamental*
>non-scientific nature of their theory. But, the issue Bertvan is talking
>about here, while a worthy topic, is not relevant to the views I was
>presenting. It's not, fundamentally, about what is taught in the schools, or
>whether someone is imposing their views on others.
>
>(In case anyone wonders, I'm completely opposed to public schooling anyway,
>precisely because it's not government's business to be imposing its (or some
>"majoritie's") views on other people. That's why we have seperation of
>church and state, and that's why, ultimately, we must have seperation of
>school and state. Getting government mixed up in schooling *or* religion, or
>vice versa, is a bad thing. In fact, it's essentially the *same* thing; an
>attempt at mind-control ("justified," of course by good intentions, despite
>the horrendous harm it does -- I guess the people who support government
>schooling but who oppose government religion believe that those who support
>government religion are *not* just as well-intentioned as they are -- or
>else they just only point their hypocrisy detectors toward others).
So, how does the second paragraph relate to the first?