"Check out this Google Fight, after posting your Google Fight I think you're trying to say that the video ipod is bigger than this news story. Al though I do believe this Brokeback story is a public outcry, does it mean it isn't one if it gets less exposure than another story? A lot of the people talking about this are in a forum like this one, bloggers and people leaving comments under news articles. As to whether they are for it or against it shouldn't matter, the public is voicing it's opinion about this."
No, I was just saying it isn't really a public outcry. From what I've seen there haven't been people marching in the streets because someone showed this in school, just a complaint and maybe some support. I don't think it's something we can use to gauge the opinions of the american people with.
"honestly think The Passion has been shown without incident because most people are ok with it. You called many of my points irrelevant, but what I'm trying to show is that a lot of people are ok with their child seeing The Passion. They went as a whole family, they call it a family outing. Having it shown in schools comes off as the school system finally doing something right for a change in their eyes."
I'd say some people are ok with their child seeing the passion. I'd guess that most wouldn't be ok with their kid seeing it in a public school for a lot of reasons. There would undoubtedly be a few, and a margin in the middle who just didn't want to do anything about it, but there would be some that are pissed off, and it only takes one for it to become a national story really.
"The social and political views of the teachers is very relevant here, this is what the base of the story is about."
I'd argue that their actual views aren't relevant at all. I'd say that the core of the issue is how they want to express those views in the classroom. Even suggesting that the kids view the movie rather than actually showing it is a much better option because of the liability involved.
"The Passion (TP) would never get as much fallout as Brokeback Mountain (BM, I'm sick of typing these two), especially in a lawsuit. The courts are biased towards christianity even to this very day."
That's a pretty bold statement. I can't think of many recent examples to support this, but it doesn't matter. Religion in school is already a supreme court settled case. There are strict guidelines about it set out specifically to make sure schools adhere to the "freedom of religion" aspect of the constitution. That's my main argument here - there's already precedent keeping it out. then again, in a civil case with a jury...who the fuck knows? It would all depend on the social composition of the jury.
"When you get sworn in court you're forced to use the Bible, only a handful allow you to bring your own religious text."
That's pretty much not true. Many states don't even use the bible anymore period, and many allow you to swear on whatever religious book, (lack thereof) you want. I am, however, going off second hand information here and haven't looked up any state by state stats myself. But, to be fair, I got this from a professor in a section of a course focusing on social philosophy in states with vastly differing social, cultural, and racial demographics. He was kind of jackass though.
"A priest doesn't have to testify against someone who has spilled their guts in confession about a crime, hell, a priest is considered a reputable witness. Why should someone be considered a more trustworthy person than I am, because they're a priest?"
You can say the same for doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, and many other professions. Why is an engineer a more reputable source than an electrician? I don't know, but according to the law they are (judging from the fact that they can act as witnesses for passports).
"However, I don't see the connection of voting christians believing in the separation of church and state."
The point is that just because they are Christian, that doesn't mean that it carries over into every thing they do. It's not necessarily the Christian part of them that makes up their political ideals. It was basically just there to counter your 70% theory. 70% doesn't mean anything at all except the fact that 70% of the people answering census data put down Christian. you can come to a variety of conclusions from that, but again, it's obviously not a litmus test.
"how come Jesus isn't on our national flag correct? Well, its because the founders of this country didn't make it that way. They set up a series of checks, balances and hurdles to stop the influence of many devices like religion, but that doesn't stop christians from trying though."
The constitution means nothing if a majority (especially a 70% majority) doesn't support it...especially in a democratic republic. If that 70% really wanted religion in schools it would be. I just simply set out a simplified scenario of how it could be done (supreme court stacking). Some christians certainly want it (thus, the things you've spoken about), but nowhere near the percentage of the total population you're talking about.
"I respect your opinion about christianity being more controversial than being gay, but I can't see it"
Fair enough, but that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that promoting Christianity in public schools is more controversial than promoting sexual tolerance in public schools. Maybe not in some areas like the deep south, but across America as a whole I'd say it certainly is.
"Maybe it's only being shown to classes that reside in the "bible belt" or "red states". "
That's the thing, we're kind of involved in a stupid debate because we can't really know.
As for homeschooling:
You missed
4: public education in America is pretty fucking bad.
