Frankly, I’m getting pretty sick of Strayer and how repetitive he is. It seems like every chapter just rehashes a previous one and I have seriously lost interest. My mind wanders while I read now and forcing myself to pay attention isn’t helping. Rereading paragraphs I’ve let my mind wander on just makes the task of reading even more tedious. But…we’ve finally come to a somewhat new topic – religion and science. This chapter held my attention a little more than the ones from the recent past. Maybe that’s because it made my blood boil within the first paragraph. I get so frustrated when I hear people use the separation of church and state argument. In my studies I’ve always learned that separation of church and state meant that the state (government) didn’t get to dictate how or what people worshiped. They didn’t get to impose their beliefs on the public. That’s one of the things our founding fathers were frustrated with in England – the state church and its authority in political matters. In my opinion, our government is doing the same thing. They deny us the right to express ourselves on public property and force their atheistic/agnostic beliefs on us through our education system. Why is it wrong to teach multiple points of view? The prologue of our book says that many creation stories exist. The Navajo believed the world was created by Holy People who lived underground and were forced to the surface by a flood and created man and women out of ears of corn. The Greeks thought an original Cosmic Egg gave birth to the deities of Earth and Sky who then created earth and its living creatures. Ancient Hebrews believed that God brought order to the chaos and created light and dark, earth, and all living creatures. What makes this last story so scary to our government? Why can we teach other stories of creation and not this one? Why is Christianity the main religion that provokes the separation of church and state argument? It’s frustrating and interesting all the same.