Loch Ness Monster used to debunk evolution in state-funded Christian school. Should religious schools be funded by taxpayers?

by ServantOfAllah Posted 2012/06/25 22:52:28

Related Topics: School, Evolution, Text, Religious, Christian, Student, hoax, Schools, Website, Science, Pastor

141 votes
Read all 271 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes, religious schools should be tax payer funded.	13 votes	9%
	No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.	112 votes	79%
	Undecided	16 votes	11%

Loch Ness Monster used to debunk evolution in state-funded Christian school. Should religious schools be funded by taxpayers?

It sounds like a hoax, but it's apparently true: The Loch Ness Monster is on the science class syllabus for kids at Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, Louisiana.

As reported by the Herald Scotland, a Louisiana school that will receive tax-payer dollars, will teach kids that the mythological sea creature is real in order to debunk the theory of evolution.

According to the Herald, one textbook, Biology 1099, reads, "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

Starting in the fall, thousands of schoolchildren will receive publicly funded vouchers to attend private schools, some of which are religious. Religious schools in Louisiana will receive public funding as part of a push from Louisiana's governor, Bobby Jindal, to move millions of tax dollars to cover tuition for private schools, including small bible-based church schools. Money will fund schools that have "bible-based math books" and biology texts that refute evolution.

At Eternity Christian Academy, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier says that evolution is not taught. Carrier said, "We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children."

She hopes to secure enrollment of 135 voucher students for the 2012-2013 school year. According to the website Salon, the school currently has just 38 students.

See full story at http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/loch-ness-monster-used-d...

+28

Add a comment above

Onyx11 2012/06/25 23:59:53 (edited)

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+14

>> See Replies

More polls by ServantOfAllah

wtw 2012/06/26 04:07:37

Undecided

Nobody --no christians I know believe in the Loch Ness Monster other than Chef on South Park--this is stupid!

reply
aneed2know to wtw 2012/06/26 06:27:50

+5
then why are they using it?

reply
SoCalEx-Dem 2012/06/26 03:48:01

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+2
The religious schools are doing fine with out the intrusion of the government. They turn out smarter students, probably cause they know their parents are paying for it and not the tax payer or government.

reply
Jeremiah to SoCalEx... 2012/06/27 01:22:59

+2
So you are OK with religious schools teaching radical Islam at taxpayers' expense?

reply
SoCalEx... to Jeremiah 2012/06/27 17:15:39

I'm not for any religious schools getting any government spending for anything.

reply
Jeremiah to SoCalEx... 2012/06/27 17:50:32

What about vouchers?

reply
SoCalEx... to Jeremiah 2012/06/27 23:49:46

What about them? Have never used or been offered a voucher, paid for religious schools on a payment plan.

reply
Jeremiah to SoCalEx... 2012/06/28 00:06:33

So you don't believe in them?

reply
SoCalEx... to Jeremiah 2012/06/28 05:56:12

+1
If the vouchers come from the government, then no I don't think its a good thing.

reply
Farnsworth 2012/06/26 03:38:26

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+5
HOWEVER......If a parent chooses to send there kid to a Christian school, they should have the right to divert any state or local taxes to the school to pay for tuition.

reply
Jeremiah to Farnsworth 2012/06/27 01:23:48

+3
What about a non-Christian religious school, like one that teaches Islam?

reply
Farnsworth to Jeremiah 2012/06/27 03:19:39

snipe

reply
Jeremiah to Farnsworth 2012/06/27 05:08:36

Snipe?

reply
Farnsworth to Jeremiah 2012/06/27 11:26:31 (edited)

reply
Jeremiah to Farnsworth 2012/06/27 12:22:13

Is there a point in there somewhere?

reply
Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/06/26 03:17:12

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+2
I don't believe ANY school should be taxpayer funded, but rather run as a non-profit business, with contributions by parents who have full autonomy as to what schools to send their kids to, that can be based on teacher performance.

reply
john doe 2012/06/26 02:44:53

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+1
Does this surprise anyone?

reply
hayesml47 2012/06/26 02:41:51

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+6
There are very good reasons for not mixing religions and governments! Just look at the extremist Muslim countries! Christianity can easily be just as, if not more, extreme! If this country is to survive the current far right extremist Christian onslaught, everyone should be educated at public neutral schools in every subject that they will need to be able to make rational, common sense decisions when it comes to voting and living in our country!

reply
The Libertarian 2012/06/26 02:21:31

Undecided

So we are worried about a school that has 38 students, oh horror.

reply
santa6642 2012/06/26 02:20:30

Yes, religious schools should be tax payer funded.

I support state schools which I would never send a child too.

reply
elijahin24 to santa6642 2012/06/26 12:38:29

+2
And you have the right not to send your child there. But you cannot, within the bounds of the Constitution, make tax dollars, fund religion.

reply
Jeremiah to santa6642 2012/06/27 01:25:17

+2
Would you send that child to a Muslim school?

reply
Jiorgia 2012/06/26 02:13:53

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+6
full stop.

reply
Michelle 2012/06/26 02:09:14

Yes, religious schools should be tax payer funded.

+3
First off, I'm agnostic. I live in Ontario and I go to a Catholic school. Parents paying taxes specify what local school-board their children are in (unless the teachers have been lying to us about how it works, I wouldn't put it past some of them). I know people who have been to both a Catholic and Public school, and they all agree that the overall environment in a religious school is much better than in the public school board. We have many people in the school who are not Catholics, and they are not treated differently or anything. And, speaking as someone who goes to a publicly-funded Catholic school, these things don't happen. We have a variety of religion teachers who encourage questions and try to answer them to the best of their ability, and promote the idea that science and religion are not at war. I learned the theory of evolution in grade nine religion class as it is supposed to be, without any creationalist arguments about whether or not it was correct. In science, we learn the same thing as in the public schools because we are bound to the Ontario curriculum. We have a mandatory "World Religions" course which teaches about other religions and promotes the idea that there is good in them, despite not being the same as Catholicism. We learn about the Bible, morality...

First off, I'm agnostic. I live in Ontario and I go to a Catholic school. Parents paying taxes specify what local school-board their children are in (unless the teachers have been lying to us about how it works, I wouldn't put it past some of them). I know people who have been to both a Catholic and Public school, and they all agree that the overall environment in a religious school is much better than in the public school board. We have many people in the school who are not Catholics, and they are not treated differently or anything. And, speaking as someone who goes to a publicly-funded Catholic school, these things don't happen. We have a variety of religion teachers who encourage questions and try to answer them to the best of their ability, and promote the idea that science and religion are not at war. I learned the theory of evolution in grade nine religion class as it is supposed to be, without any creationalist arguments about whether or not it was correct. In science, we learn the same thing as in the public schools because we are bound to the Ontario curriculum. We have a mandatory "World Religions" course which teaches about other religions and promotes the idea that there is good in them, despite not being the same as Catholicism. We learn about the Bible, morality and sin, life issues, and the sometimes surprising teachings of the Catholic Church. Yes, sometimes people don't agree, but they do it in a way that tries not to offend anyone and they allow us to debate if we do not agree. It's a very good learning environment.
(more)

reply
The Lib... to Michelle 2012/06/26 02:25:54

reply
Jiorgia to Michelle 2012/06/26 02:48:37 (edited)

+3
taught evolution in grade nine religion class? "as it was supposed to be"
evolution is a science not religion.

edit: oh and, i am not denying that it can be a good school environment, i just think that if a school is going to be religious then it shouldn't be funded by the state/taxes in a secular country.

reply
Michelle to Jiorgia 2012/06/26 02:52:43

I know that. By, "as it was supposed to be", I mean, the correct theory of evolution. Not some BS religious excuse. I know that evolution is a science, but we were taught the theory during a religion course. Don't ask me why, I'm confused four years later as to why we went over it, but it happened.

reply
Jiorgia to Michelle 2012/06/26 02:55:53

oh okay, my apologies.

reply
Michelle to Jiorgia 2012/06/26 02:56:38

It's all good. I should have been more careful with my wording.

reply
Chris- ... to Michelle 2012/06/26 02:53:27

+1
There is a similar thing that happens in big cities in this country. The public schools tend to be less than desirable so many parents send their kids to Catholic schools whether they are Catholic or not. Generally speaking Catholic schools are not the ones teaching creationism and rejecting science in favor of religion. Polls show most Catholics believe in evolution, the expanding universe, global warming, etc...

reply
apachehellfire65 2012/06/26 01:46:29

No, religious schools should NOT be taxpayer funded.

+5
no! just like i think those taxpayers who are against abortions should not have to pay for them. i also think people who do not believe in the church should not have to pay for their functions.

reply
TuringsChild 2012/06/26 01:25:58

Yes, religious schools should be tax payer funded.

Home schoolers should ALSO be funded by taxpayers. And while you're worried about the Loch Ness Monster, our Public Schools are still teaching Newtonian physics as if it were current. And THAT mindset make it much easier to sell other lies to them later on.

There's plenty wrong on both sides of the fence. A better solution would be to STOP ALL Federal interference in school and teaching policies. Let the best schools WIN the most students. The others will catch up when they start losing their market share.

reply
Michelle to Turings... 2012/06/26 01:58:27 (edited)

+3
The thing is, they teach Newtonian physics as a base to understand physics later. Yes, it's a waste if you don't make it past the Newtonian roots, but dropping a kid into Einstein's relativity without learning Newtonian physics first would be a nightmare. It's the same with Chemistry; you start off learning the basic theory of the atom-- an out of date model-- and then they drop you into Quantum Physics with a base understanding of how electrons work before trying to explain how, yes, there can be more than eight electrons in one orbit level, why do you ask?

reply
socokid to Turings... 2012/06/26 02:11:22 (edited)

+4
We teach Newtonian physics to children because Newtonian physics still work 99.999% of the time a human employs physics.

Unless they are building quantum machines, Newtonian physics is wildly useful. The cornerstone of "every day" physics.

reply
Turings... to socokid 2012/06/26 03:04:29

So what you're saying is that it's more convenient to lie to our kids. Got it.

reply
socokid to Turings... 2012/06/26 05:37:51 (edited)

+1
What? *sigh*

We teach Newtonian physics because it is unimaginably practical. Period. Almost all practical physics still use Newtonian calculations because it works for almost anything we do.

Go to engineering school. See how many times they bring up special relativity.

No one is suggesting Einstein's theories should not be taught as well, and they usually are. They work when considering things we will almost never experience (the very big, the very fast), and gives us insight into how our Universe behaves in these extremes. However, Newtonian physics still rule here on Earth. Until our kids only need to know how to move planets at the speed of light, we will continue to teach it. When that day comes, Einstein's theories will be more practical. Until then...

reply
Idiot r... to Turings... 2012/06/26 02:11:28 (edited)

+4
Free market has never worked in education and certainly not religion disguised as the free market.

reply
Turings... to Idiot r... 2012/06/26 03:05:18

The Free Market CREATED education. You would know that if you had a real one.

reply
elijahin24 to Turings... 2012/06/26 12:40:04

+2
Right. While we're at it, we'll privatize police forces, the military, and everything else. The only thing the government should regulate is a womans uterus, and marriage.

reply
Turings... to elijahin24 2012/06/26 15:19:24

*sigh* How about we just stick to the Constitution? Is that really asking so much? Regulating 'a womans uterus, and marriage' is JUST AS AUTHORITARIAN as forcing all schools to teach the same thing the same way regardless of circumstances or parental standards. The military is one of the very few legitimate purposes of govt. But even that is supposed to be defensive. We're NOT the World Police, and pretending we are only serves the banksters and financial moguls who have bought and paid for this Nation's politicians.

reply