Fionn,

If you read right then I wrote wrong. What I tried to say is that (though there is no need to deny the teaching of evolution) it is persecution (though that may be an inaccurate word to use) to tell people of faith that they are wrong--granted a pluralistic society. I also added the fact that we are talking about state schools funded by both the religious and the non. Right now it seems to be a good compromise to allow for both--teach evolution but allow that a god might have had a hand in it.

The place where this becomes more explosive is contained in Gary T's statement that "theology is not an objective matter". Actually, any theology believed is, to that person, and objective matter. That's what belief in a religion is after all. It doesn't imply how dogmatic one might hold those beliefs--I, for one, believe what I believe and of course I think that I'm right to a certain extent (or I wouldn't BELIEVE in the first place). Gary would have been more accurate had he said "theology is not an emperical matter". We tend to be able to live in a pluralist society as long as those theologies held objective do not interfere with the rights of others to believe as they objectively believe. So far, our society has had room for, and respect for many diverse beliefs.

The irony to me is that Christianity, as I understand it, is a matter of volitional belief--thereby theoretically posing no threat. In a pluralist society Christians should be able to participate in our democracy on an equal footing with other citizens. If, informed by one's religion, one believes something to be good for a society he should vote for it and if he thinks it is harmful to society he should vote against it. The reason the boom is soon to be lowered on what you have been referring to as Fundamentalist Christians is that, counter to their own theology they seem to think that they can change the souls of man by changing his behavior--diametrically opposed to true Christian theology IMO. Society won't have it and will strike back.

Incidentally, rather than "religion invented to give man piece of mind", I might say "Man lacks piece of mind because he eschews his natural state of faith"

Respectfully,

John