">The real conflict between science and religion in US history arrived
>with Darwin and evolution, and it is still going on. This is where the
>US legal system could use some old fashion Enlightenment philosophy to
>sort out the difference between tolerance for religious practices, and
>the general social and educational benefit of exposure to scientific
>ideas, as well as more diverse political ideas.
>
>As far as I know, philosophy as such is not taught in US high schools
>anywhere."
Yes, I agree with your understanding of Spinoza. It´s right. In Europe, as far as I know, darwinism is teached almost in the 100% of high schools. With some troubles with the pupils, as i know myself from my own experience. But it´s accepted, generally. However, this doesn´t mean that is teached Spinoza´s philosophy, but Kant´s philosophy, whose both conceptions are not exactly the same. Maybe Kant (in the best case, because Leibniz or some theological spirits of a newmedievalism are also in the market, or hegelians, like Strauss...), is used in Europe like Locke in US (and in UK). Spinoza is in the limbo, or mixed with Marx in a way I don´t agree with.
Kant´s conception of science, taken from Newton, is right, but it doesn´t happen the same with his Moral, which is very extended in Europe. We can teach Spinoza like an alternative, maybe mixed with Nietzsche or also with pragmatism. Because pragmatism join science and politics in a spinozist way which is different to Kant. In this sense, I think Locke tolerance to religious practice can be accepted if the main purpose is teaching Spinoza´s free thinking.
ximo