Atheist claims are the same; we believe we hold the truth, which is there is no God. Its an exclusive truth claim.
I dislike this definition that gets thrown around a lot. There is an important distinction between rejecting/absence of the belief in a God and believing there is no God. The latter is fine in everyday chat but if you're trying to have a genuine debate with some it's just logically incoherent and should be interpreted as lacking a belief in a God.
I agree, he isn't going to turn them away. Just like an atheist school teacher isn't going to be shy in what he teaches about his belief in the origins of the world. Once again, we have no problem with a science teacher doing that. But when religions request an equal footing, then people get uneasy and point to separation of church and state.
Heh. The key difference is facts. The science teacher should be teaching facts. I have no problem with a science teacher teaching facts because these facts don't interfere with my world view. If you mean that they shouldn't be telling students that this proves that God doesn't exist or is therefore unlikely (i.e sharing their atheist-minded conclusions) then I agree. Much like I'd expect a religious science teacher to stick to the facts and not sneak in a "but this doesn't exclude God, children!" or a "... which was all thanks to God!".
People get uneasy when religions request equal footing because religion is not on equal footing with Science in a fact-based learning environment. This is something many religious people have trouble accepting.
Currently, schools support a secular worldview because, in good sense, it is working and we live in a multicultural environment where plurality of beliefs exist. I'm not upset with the current methodology or approach. But I am saying it isn't fair to now take that a step further and completely divorce any teaching /access of religion from schools as that will be to support secular worldview to the exclusion of religious worldview.
I don't really understand why if religion is such a personal/spiritual topic that it can't be taught in the home by family or at Church. That being said, elective religious classes don't bother me too much, as long as it's not core/compulsory.
Eh? How? Like teaching secularism isn't going to offend a large segment of the community? Your own argument folds in on itself.
How does one even teach secularism? The point of secularism is to be free from religious based rulings and teachings. When religious subjects are only elective and not compulsory, I'd argue you've achieved a reasonable level of secularism. Don't get me wrong, I'd totally be in favour of complete separation, but surely this is a decent middle-ground.
