Im not sure why people have a problem with evolution being in schools. I talked about this alittle in a previous blog. Dr. maxfield did a good job of explaining that it is called the "evolutionary theory" not "evolutionary fact." What does this mean for people learning about evolution in schools? It means the same thing when you learn about how homo sapiens got to to the Americas? Did they cross a landbridge connecting Russia with Alaska? Did Egyptians come over on boats and thats how there are pyramids in central america? Was there Human ancestors here all along?

These are all theories, and I remember learning all of these reasons in ancient history in highschool. How silly would it be if my mother stomped into the school and screamed out the teacher for telling her about the theory of Egyptians coming over on boat. She would yell and say "we are a family that strictly believes in people coming from Russia!" In regards to human creation, we need to learn about all the theories. Learning about the theory doesn't mean believing in the theory.

Some say that, just like you cant express a certain religion in school, you cant express evolution-because evolution is a religion (atheism). I believe this viewpoint to be a little off base. The definition of Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is not God." I will buy a coke for anyone who can show me that principle in an evolution textbook.

I think religion, but not God, should be in schools. Religion should be taught in the form of a cultural construct, no different than any other subject that might come up in a global studies/culture class. It should not be taught or discussed in the form of spiritual pursuit. If we approach in religion in this way, I dont think there would be much conflict in the issue.

When it comes to differences in religion, much of the difference comes from culture. I think religion should be learned by students in this context. For instance, if students are learning about China, The curriculum might be "The Chinese had historical dynasties, their main form of agriculture is growing rice, Their main form of religion is Buddhism and Confucianism. Buddhism originated 500 B.C.E and has these major beliefs: blah blah blah." The same can go for Christianity, Islam, Evolution, ect.

If taught like this, religion is nothing more than a culture aspect of one group of people or another, and really not that much different than wedding traditions or table manners. Why do People from India openly burp after a meal? why do people believe believe in nirvana? It's just part of their culture. If taught in this way, the theological debate of religion can be avoided, to a certain extent.

As far as Religious expression, I believe it should not be expressed in school. If done correctly as above, I do not believe this to be difficult. Should teachers state their religious stance to their students? After a lecture on Indian culture, would the teacher ever give their stance on how dumb it is that Indians burp to show their appreciation of the meal? No. Then why would A teacher give their stance on Christianity after some related topic came up.

Some students in the class said they would not have a problem expressing their views to students, saying "I have my views and I can tell them, and my students can take their own views." The problem with this is that the teacher is in a position of authority, and has unexpected influence. The point of teachers is to tell students information, and to have students believe them. I know electrons orbit around protons because somebody who is smarter than me figured it out and says its true. I know Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence because my High School history teacher told me he did. Why couldn't a student go home and say to his christian parents "Maybe Christianity isn't true, because my science teacher at school who knows alot about that stuff says it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint." If there ever comes an opportunity for a teacher to express his views about a subject about religion, they should say "it doesn't matter what I think, lets move on to chapter 2."

What about the present situations like saying the pledge of allegiance and praying after the football game? As my stance above, the pledge of allegiance should be taken as a cultural (American) tradition and not a christian religion. If you don't believe in God, or hate America, I'm sure you wont get in trouble for standing there like a bump on a log not saying it. But I think one must understand where you are (in America, whom is paying for your education).

I have been in other countries where christanity is not the preferred religion. In such contexts, I have been in situations where the majority was practicing religion I did not wish to partake in. I had to stand up and bow my head while somebody prayed to Allah for the meal we were about to eat. I relized I am in someone else's country (one nation under Allah) and i the guest will not about to go against those in their own land. I bowed my head and was singing a song to my self of something like that, no big deal. A man once prayed to Krishna for our safe return back to America. How awful it would have been for me to tell him I would prefer it if he would not do such a thing, As I think his religion is wrong. Again, I just stood there and daydreamed until he was done with his thing, then just move along.

In my opinion, Saying the Lord's Prayer after the football game probably shouldn't happen. However, I think this only because the coach or big-shot senior captian usually starts it, and they is in a position of authority (refer to above). However, people have been saying the Lord's prayer long before any of us went out for the sport. In a sense, saying the Lord's prayer is an aspect of HS football culture. My highschool football team said it after the game, and I remember if anyone really had a problem with it, they could just sit there like a bump on a log for 45 seconds and then life moves on.

Its like me being in different countries stated above. If I moved to Saudi Arabia in Highschool and played on the highschool football team (lets say they actually have one), I would put my money they would pray to Allah after the game. Wouldn't I be the stupid American who made a hissy fit about being forced to pray with the team. Or I could refrain from being the drama queen and just sit through it and daydream untill it was over, no big deal.
Maybe the strict society centered around Islam would punish me severely for not participating in the Religion against my values. Well that would be a sad story; But for all those in America, just thank the country you are in who doesnt force you into saying the pledge of allegiance or the football prayer. You can just sit it out! But dont make the people of America sit out as well.

This blog may seem contradictory of itself. I say religion should not be spiritually expressed in school, but one should not argue if people do it. In closing I say This: Religion will be less of an Issue if it is treated as a cultural construct and not one of spirituality. That being said, one culture may be the majority and dominate over others. No one is ever going to stop that. In that case, just be thankful that the dominating culture you are presently in is pretty lenient considering the rest of the world.

During class, it seemed that most were opposed to the idea of promoting chocolate milk in schools. These people brought up many fine points like 1. is it not as healthy as regular milk 2. the Decorah students were consuming more sugar than they needed to in one day 3. there is alot of extra sugar in chocolate milk. All these arguments add up to the big idea that chocolate milk is promoting obesity and unhealthy lifestyles in today's students.
The three points against chocolate milk are un-arguable. These three are all fact, and no denying it. We all know chocolate milk has got sugar; we all know its less healthy than regular milk. However, is this really a problem?

1. chocolate milk is not as healthy as regular milk. there are about 23 grams of sugar in chocolate milk. There are, however, 11 or 12 grams in regular milk. This is 11 or 12 grams of sugar more than a glass of water. Is water healthier than milk (technically yes). maybe we should just not have milk (or juice, which has about 20 grams of sugar in 8oz) at school at all...only water. The argument to this is that the sugar in regular milk is "natural sugar" this is in the form of lactose, which is basically the same chemically as sucrose, which is the extra sugar in chocolate milk. Both forms of sugar are treated the same in the body. Both are stored as glycogen in the muscles and turn into fat if not worked off within 48 hours of being consumed. In this sense, extra natural sugar is really no better than extra added sugar. My mother was recently diagnosed as pre-diabetic. This means if she does not control her sugar intake, she will become diabetic. My mother was sad "oh no!.. no more treats!" Actually, the doctor said candy and sweets were ok, but she needed to cut down on her complex sugars more. These are the sugars found in carb-loaded foods like bread (natural sugars). This goes to my next point.

2. The Decorah kids were consuming more sugar than they needed to a day due to chocolate milk. If a student is only supposed to have 36 grams a day, that means only 24 oz of milk.. no more! What if you want a glass of orange juice (20 grams of sugar). There is even about 5 grams of sugar in a serving of vegetables. If you get 4 or 5 servings of healthy vegetables a day, that adds up to 20 or 25 grams of sugar! (even if it is "natural" sugar). Not to mention the bread and grains you consume.

3. The extra added sugar in chocolate milk. Obviously children today are getting a lot of sugar. Chocolate milk is obviously a contribute. However, is this really a big issue in schools: too much consumption of chocolate milk that contributes to obesity? I don't believe it is. Back in high school, I bet many of the athletes consumed at least 200 grams of sugar (natural and added) a day. These people were also under 10% body fat. How? Because they got up and did something every single day. Earlier I stated Sugar is stored in muscles as glycogen for about 48 hours, then turned to fat. When you work out, this energy storage in muscles is the first thing to be used (about the first 30-60 minutes of a workout). If you workout past this point, you begin to burn off your fat storage. Therefore I argue promoting sugar-loaded in chocolate milk is only an issue in schools if students are not getting their recommended hour of play/exercise a day. When did child obesity begin to be an issue in this country? Was it around the same time chocolate milk was discovered or about the time color television, cable, and Nintendo were all invented? Decorah schools put the winning money towards wellness/health/exercise areas. If these areas flourish in Decorah schools, I believe all the chocolate milk consumption was worth it.