Where is the line between "religious tolerance" and supporting ignorance?

Supposedly religious tolerance means we have to turn a blind eye to all of the backwards, uneducated ideas promoted by extreme conservative "Christians," such as teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis (creationism) in our public schools as a viable alternative to evolution, or teaching that the earth is only a few thousand years old.



I agree we should have "religious tolerance," but why does that have to include such ignorance? What do we do when it starts setting our nation back, such as in the case of stem-cell research?



During the Soviet era, the government had most of the scientists killed or sent to the gulags, and it set their nation back decades in things like crop genetics (which is basically evolution). These far-right religious wackos here sure yell and scream about evolution (while demonstrating their complete lack of the basic theory), then sit down to a dinner of abundant meat and nice big vegetables and think nothing of it.



Isn't there something we can do to better educate people?Where is the line between "religious tolerance" and supporting ignorance?
Constantly moving.Where is the line between "religious tolerance" and supporting ignorance?
So you think that the creation of Adam %26amp; Eve before all of the animals does not conflict with evolution?Where is the line between "religious tolerance" and supporting ignorance?
You've crossed from religious tolerance to supporting ignorance when the concept of seperation of chruch and state is broken. "Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishment of a religion." When teaching creationism in public schools you've not only crossed the line, but decided it's okay, to impose Christian values on Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, Atheist etc. kids. The solution is simple, keep all religion out of public school curriculm. Religion is to be taught at home, in private schools and chruches.

redlobster

pearson prentice hall