Separation of church and state

It is. It's called the First Amendment. You know, the one that, amongst other things, separates Church and State?If you merely wish to quibble that that phrase is not in the Constitution, then I would point out that neither is the phrase "separation of powers". But the principle is.

May I take it that, as you are a religious conservative, you are using the term "special rights" to mean "exactly the same rights as heterosexuals already have"?If it costs money to grant people these rights (and you have neither provided evidence for this nor given the faintest hint as to why you think it might be true) then I would point out that homosexuals are a fairly small minority, and that you could save even more money by depriving heterosexuals of their rights.

It is not true that everyone has told you that. For example, no-one participating in this thread has told you that.Could you try to be a little more truthful?

So, nothing here about the doctrine of separation?OK, I think we're done.Perhaps if you now wish to be wrong about biology instead you could start a thread in the science section.

A fine example of creationist dishonesty.The evidence presented shows that a teacher of biology by teaching biology made people less ignorant of biology.But not one shred of evidence that:(a) He said one single word in favor of atheism.
(b) One single one of his students became an atheist as a result of his teaching.But besides all that, Cornell University is a private institution. It can't violate the separation of Church and State any more than Bob Jones University can. Their teachers do not get "dragged into court" for really teaching their religious views. (Nor has anyone suggested that they should be.) And yet creationists whine that Provine hasn't been "dragged into court" for allegedly teaching his.So even if the unevidenced creationist fantasies about him "openly indoctrinating students in atheism" were by some bizarre fluke true (rather then being an example of the usual dishonest creationist gibberish that equates biological knowledge with atheism) this would still have damn-all to do with the separation doctrine.So how about you get back on topic and post something that does?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, the government can pay a private institution to do research, development, or indeed practically anything else. That doesn't magically make it into a federal agency.Incidentally, what are your thoughts on Faith-Based Initiatives? If a church gets money from the government to (e.g.) run a drug rehabilitation program, does it thereby become a public institution, or does it continue to be an independent organization ... a church, as it were, separate from the state?