Nerys Ghemor wrote:
Oh, and on the point of illegality? In the US, anyway, I might remind people of the First Amendment. It simultaneously prohibits the government from allowing a system of belief or unbelief to be favored in the public schools (this would be establishment of religion or irreligion by the state), and prevents the government from making or enforcing any laws respecting the religious speech of private citizens (this would violate the citizen's right to free speech and religious expression), meaning that parents and private schools are free, as long as they do not incite violence, to teach what they believe is right. To make any law otherwise would not just be a violation of some obscure code--it would be a major constitutional violation. BOTH protections must be maintained...not just the one that each of the hardliners in this debate seems to consider most favorable to them.
Not sure if you are aiming this at me or not, but you didn't answer my question. If you meant "unconstitutional" when you said "highly illegal," then why not just say that that's what you meant. Illegal, highly or otherwise, doesn't imply unconstitutional, anyway. You don't need to remind me of the First Amendment; I've heard of it (at the very least).