At 8:53 AM -0600 2/22/01, Jim Guinee wrote:
>> "the public" is unfortunately ignorant about how science differs from
>> religion, and which topic is appropriate in which classroom.
>>
>> * PAUL K. BRANDON
>That sounds a little pedantic, don't you think?
So?
>So are you saying religion is not appropriate in the classroom.
>At all?
I thought that I clearly implied that religion is not appriapriate in
science classrooms in public institutions.
It is appropriate in (e.g.) history or literature classrooms of public
institutions as long as the purpose is not the promotion of religion.
Private schools may do as they wish as long as they do not wish for public
support.
>I'm certainly not advocating "promoting" religion, whether we promote one or
>all of them, in a secular institution. Even evangelistic folks need to be
>mindful that they are not being paid to promote religion.
>
>But it seems that some folks over-expand this idea -- since we shouldn't
>promote it, or some don't but into it, let's not discuss it all.
>
>Like it or not, many Americans are quite theistic and tend to use religion as
>a means to understand and live in the world. Why not engage people in
>religious discourse? Challenge their ways of knowing? Get them to analyze
>religious and scientific explanations for the same phenomena?
No problem -- just don't call it science.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
