NationStates Jolt Archive

Ban Religion in Schools
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nibbleton
Description:
It is currently the case that many state schools across the world openly preach religion (mainly Christianity) to children from an early age.

It therefore is proposed that it should be made illegal for religion to be forced upon students in this way in all government-funded schools in UN nations.
The students in these schools are typically from a range of cultural backgrounds, and do not wish to have their education time being taken up by teachers preaching things which they either don't believe in or which conflict with their own views.

These resolutions need not apply in Privately-funded schools, or religion-specific schools.

Religious Education should still be included as a subject, as it is important that students are aware of different religious views.


A concerned parent has written to the Department of Education in Nibbleton horrified that her son was being preached Catholic teachings in his school assembely. The family is avowedly athiest, and as the government has a similar religious stature, we felt very strongly about this issue.
After having numerous debates and parlimentary discussions on the issue, the Nibbleton Foriegn Office put together a proposal to ban religious preaching in Government-funded schools, other than those that are clearly religion-specific schools.

We ask you to consider this issue seriously, and if in doubt to consider this situation:
You are brought up as an orthodox Jew. When you start school, your headteacher begins preaching Hindu scripture to you. For a children of 5, the conflicting Jewish upbringing of your parents and the relentless Hindu teachings of your school could very easily become worrying and confusing, not only effecting your education, but also greatly confusing your view of the world.

Aplogies for the long explanation, but thanks for reading this far,
Major Johnson, Nibbleton

You definatly have a valid point that should be discussed by the UN, therefore I will approve the above proposal.

I have several questions about your wordings...

First off, "it should be made illegal for religion to be forced upon students in this way in all government-funded schools in UN nations. " Now that is very unclear and poorly written. Rarely is religion ever FORCED on anyone, and thus it would have many loopholes. I would urge you to define that a little clearer.

And second, you say your government is avowedly atheist? Well guess what, that's a belief system that most theists will be offended by, so you're kinda screwing the majority anyway...

I have several questions about your wordings...

First off, "it should be made illegal for religion to be forced upon students in this way in all government-funded schools in UN nations. " Now that is very unclear and poorly written. Rarely is religion ever FORCED on anyone, and thus it would have many loopholes. I would urge you to define that a little clearer.

And second, you say your government is avowedly atheist? Well guess what, that's a belief system that most theists will be offended by, so you're kinda screwing the majority anyway...

That's a very valid point, I did word that badly. As this proposal is a result of my own experience at school, i have constantly felt I have had Christianity forced upon me, so I wrote as such in the proposal.
It should be written "It should be made illegal for religion to be preached in all government-funded schools in the UN"

As for your second point, I dont fully understand "screwing the majority" :S, but equally to your point that atheism is a religious system that offends many theists, all sorts of religions offend each other.
We do have many religious people in Nibbleton, but you wont find anybody from our government saying "God Bless Nibbleton," or similar religious phrases.

Rarely is religion ever FORCED on anyone

I suspect that depends on the school. A number of schools in the UK break the law - which states that there must be a school assembly (I believe it may be every day) which must be "predominantly Christian", on the basis that makes no sense if 95% of your students are Hindu and Muslim. Added to which, if you've got hardline Christians in the school, they're going to invite priests/vicars in - I heard recently of a case where a Wiccan's 5-year old daughter was told her mother was going to hell because of her beliefs. (NB: I'm using 'Christian' as an example because I come from a 'Christian' country; it could apply to any majority religion.)

And second, you say your government is avowedly atheist? Well guess what, that's a belief system that most theists will be offended by, so you're kinda screwing the majority anyway...

But the proposal (as I understand it) doesn't call for atheism to be taught in school instead of religion; quite the contrary, if religious teaching is to be encouraged. It would be nice to see atheism taught under religious studies though.

To be honest, you've still got the biggest loophole that religious schools aren't affected. Though at least there, the parents know what their children are going to be subjected to.

SC

Catholic Europe does not support this in any way. Religion should be taught in schools like all the other subjects. To ban religion from schools is to censor people away from freedom of religion.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Catholic Europe does not support this in any way. Religion should be taught in schools like all the other subjects. To ban religion from schools is to censor people away from freedom of religion.Religious Education should still be included as a subject, as it is important that students are aware of different religious views.

The proposal clearly states that religion should be taught in schools, like all other subjects (ooc: as it currently is in many real-world countries, the UK, for instance). Religion is not being banned from the schools, only the preaching of religion.
Furthermore, as you are obviously a Catholic nation, I assume that most of your state schools will be Catholic-specific. This religion clearly states that religion-specific schools will not be effected by this proposal, so you need not worry about yourself too much. Please try giving the proposal more consideration instead of just reading the title then resenting it.

Nibbleton

I think that religions should not be taught in puplic schools. I say this becouse in my school we are taught as christianity as being true and all other religions we learned were taught like mythology. Wich is why I believe that religion should be a personal discovery and not a lecture. :shock:

We have church-supported schools, where of course it is expected that religion will be taught.

For public schools which serve a population in which religious beliefs vary, there is provision only for a moment of silent meditation, and for study of World Religions as an academic course. All other religious practices and readings are taboo.

I think that religions should not be taught in puplic schools. I say this becouse in my school we are taught as christianity as being true and all other religions we learned were taught like mythology.

But you can legistlate against that - and if you ban group worship, for example, you're going to reduce the incidence of "this is the right god, and you will pray to them" mentality.


Wich is why I believe that religion should be a personal discovery and not a lecture. :shock:

Which is a great idea, if everyone was pro-active, came from a liberal background and had access to the information. Unfortunately many don't; they may not realise the choices they have unless someone points them out. Another thing: one of the main reasons for having religious education in a multi-cultural society is to try and break down the ignorance and misunderstanding that can lead to hate crime. Even if all your population are religion X, it's still going to broaden their minds to learn that other countries are Y or Z or whatever.

SC

It should not be the place of the United Nations to dictate to any of its member nations any position on religion or "moral decency". Therefore, Her Serene Highness the Princess of Padmaraga will vote against any proposal which attempts to do so.

It should not be the place of the United Nations to dictate to any of its member nations any position on religion or "moral decency". Therefore, Her Serene Highness the Princess of Padmaraga will vote against any proposal which attempts to do so.
In that case, why is there a "Moral Decency" category for proposals?
If you don't believe the UN should be able to control the things it does in its member nations, I suggest you resign. (sorry if this sounds harsh, but it seems logical to me)

Someone said it should not be the place of the UN to dictate "Moral Decency." I agree. It ALSO should not be the place of governments, or schools to teach or enforce morality or religion. These should come from home...from parents. Thus parents can teach their child what THEY want them taught.

This comes from one who very recently accepted Jesus as my own personal Savior. No, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist whacko...far from. Not all Christians are that way.

There are very good reasons for keeping separate Church and State. Just as many would have a problem with any particular Church's dogma being codified into civil law...so, too, should a religious person have a problem with the government interfering in their church.

Seems a lot of unctious religios people want to have THIER views and morals codified into civil law...but they'd scream bloody murder if the government tried to interfere with their church. And yiu can't have it both ways.

Thus it is I will ask our UN Delegate at Area 51 too approve this Proposal, even though I agree that the wording is somewhat sloppy.

I fully support the ideas of this proposal, although it should be human rights not moral decency (as in the freedom from undue pressure to convert - I don't want to lower my nation's levels of civil liberties). I would also add that I think Religious Education should include a more hefty dose of philosophy, not necessarily in the sense of teaching theories but to encourage open, reasoned debate between the kids.

Plus, although this definitely shouldn't be law, I don't believe even parents should teach their kids what religion to be. Instead, they should do their best to inform their children about lots of different religions, and encourage them to think it over for themselves. As well as considering the existing religions plus atheism, people of all ages ought to think these things through, perhaps coming up with their own beliefs.

I fully support the ideas of this proposal, although it should be human rights not moral decency (as in the freedom from undue pressure to convert - I don't want to lower my nation's levels of civil liberties).

Thanks - knew I'd forgotten something. The category didn't make any sense to me either.


I would also add that I think Religious Education should include a more hefty dose of philosophy, not necessarily in the sense of teaching theories but to encourage open, reasoned debate between the kids.

To be honest, it'd be nice to see that in education generally - teaching kids to reason and think, instead of just to rote remember facts.

As well as considering the existing religions plus atheism, people of all ages ought to think these things through, perhaps coming up with their own beliefs.

Which tends to be where eclectic paganism comes in - it seems a nice handy label for "make it up as you go along" :)

SC
(follower of a pan-theistic nature religion :) )

while it has a decent premise, to ban the choice to follow religion anywhere (schools) is a violation of human rights. I won't be voting with it.

while it has a decent premise, to ban the choice to follow religion anywhere (schools) is a violation of human rights. I won't be voting with it.
This proposal does not ban the right to follow religion in schools. Its seems to me you have only read the title of the proposal. The proposal is to ban religion being preached within schools. It does not stop people, for instance, praying in school.

Arthuria-Elizabetia supports this proposal.

The only sensible reason to ban "religion" is if it is violent.

There is good reason to ban any religion in schools or any public place.

Well the proposal has some reasonable points that one particular religion or another should not be forced upon students, as it is their decision to decide what faiths and beliefs they hold. I am for the banning of forcing beliefs to children.

However, I'm skeptical about much of the rest of the proposal.

Religious studies, currently in the UK, does teach children the Christian views being fact and many other faths as legends or myths. This needs to change and look atr religion from a point of view that would be neutral and in a way not to pressure students.

This is a deklicate matter and any decision we do take must be thought through. Therefore I neither support nor disapprove as of yet to this proposal.

Indeed. However, if Religious Studies/Education was taught in schools, each country would be able to define the way in which the subject is taught, and would not have to base it in the system existing in the real-world UK.
For instance, in Nibbleton, Religious Education is currently taught in a way that informs and teaches children about the different religious traditions of a variety of cultures, ranging from Judaism to Paganism. Care is taken to ensure that none are taught as "fact" and none are taught as "myth."

Some nations are based around a religion, with no seperation of church and state laws. They should be able to preach it if they with. This should be at the NATIONAL level, not the UN

QUOTE: It therefore is proposed that it should be made illegal for religion to be forced upon students in this way in all government-funded schools in UN nations.

These resolutions need not apply in Privately-funded schools, or religion-specific schools.

----

While I dont know which country you are in, some countries do, in fact, have denomenational schools (religion-specific schools) that receive government funding, as does the public school boards.

In Canada, some provinces have a number of school boards all receiving government funding based on school board populations. Many parts of Ontario have English Public, French Public, English Catholic, and French Catholic school boards. These are from Constitutional guarantees over 200 years ago for the protection of minority rights in the country. Some provinces have elected to change such systems through Constitutional ammendements as voted by the people of the province, although most provinces still retain government funding.

And some use a 'voucher system' that other religious groups (Jewish, Muslim, Independent Christian) use to fund their respective schools; namely, that the tax rate for their child would be applied to a school of their choosing.

So, while I understand your are referring to "public" schools only, the wording "government funded" can also apply to religious-specific schools as well, at least in the country I just mentioned.

The Nation of Loresong supports further exploration of this proposal

Who decides the difference between "teaching" and "preaching"? Will the UN appoint a moral guardian for each classroom? What sort of qualifications would such a guardian need to be effective in enforcing this resolution?

This concept is unenforceable as written. The Allied States of Frisbeeteria are quite capable of choosing for themselves what subjects shall be taught in State Schools, and have no desire to be required to follow UN edict on this topic.

Put us down for a rather strong "No".

Chestria will not support such motions ever and urges all nations who place an emphasis on freedom of religion actively deny support to this proposal before it reaches the resolution stage and after if necessary.

While I can understand where the author is coming from I believe it would be too easy for such a resolution to be used to enforce government sanctioned atheism or worse government sanctioned religion (on those citizens not living in a theocracy). There are no requirements on it's application thusly it can be used to suppress the expression of thoughts and beliefs to the advantage of the government. if the following haunts you at all you must not support this proposal:

"Next week there will be a special collection to prevent the government from firing those in our congregation who are teachers."

I promise you that is where this resolution will lead.

I do believe that public schools should have a complete of Church and State, for the teachings of that school on the concept of religion may insult, or defy someones already current beliefes. It is not the purpose of goverment to assualt it citizens with religion, unless that is what all the citizens want.

The Tsalagi, do not support any action, to Ban Religion in any way. Regardless to the religion. The People's right, to their Spirituality, is their own. Be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist, they are free to be so.

Teach the word of God, in school. Educate the children so that they may become great people. Teach the word of Allah, let the Children learn it too. Teach of the Great Spirit, and of nature, of the Earth. Teach the religions of non-religions. Teach that we evolved from slime. Teach our Children, our citizens, our elders. Do not restrict what they may learn, or where they may learn it. Teach all, and let our people choose.

This is an issue, that the Tsalagi feel strongly on. Our personal freedoms, shall not be restricted. If such a Bill is passed, the Tsalagi will withdraw from the United Nations, in the better intrest of the People.

Tawodi Watie
Principle Chief of the Tsalagi

I am finding a lot of U.N. proposals lately that probably shouldnt be here. Is the U.N. truly filled with nations that cannot solve their own problems, such as how to educate their children?

If your country is religious, then sure. Have religious schools. If your country isnt religious, then dont have religious schools. If the kids WANT to learn about religion, then teach them religion. I dont see where a bunch of polititions come off preaching this and that about whatever their view is. This particular argument is going to hold different values in different countries and I do not feel that the entirety of the U.N. needs to comply to a single rule when it is going to be pretty evenly split on whether people believe or disbelieve whether or not religion should be in school.

We need to take some of these issues back to the national level and quit looking to other people to solve all our problems. Have some self-responsiblity and lead. I am starting to think the U.N. is all about trying to be right for the sake of being the one that is right, not doing the right thing.

For instance, in Nibbleton, Religious Education is currently taught in a way that informs and teaches children about the different religious traditions of a variety of cultures, ranging from Judaism to Paganism. Care is taken to ensure that none are taught as "fact" and none are taught as "myth."

If you teach all religions as fact they will simply contradict each other. Christianity teaches Jesus to be the Saviour of the world. While a buddist believes in reaching nirvana through multiple tries. You cannot teach children that all is Truth while some contradict others. That will breed anarchy and lies.

JC of Jucorel
A Strong Christian president

For instance, in Nibbleton, Religious Education is currently taught in a way that informs and teaches children about the different religious traditions of a variety of cultures, ranging from Judaism to Paganism. Care is taken to ensure that none are taught as "fact" and none are taught as "myth."

If you teach all religions as fact they will simply contradict each other. Christianity teaches Jesus to be the Saviour of the world. While a buddist believes in reaching nirvana through multiple tries. You cannot teach children that all is Truth while some contradict others. That will breed anarchy and lies.

JC of Jucorel
A Strong Christian president

You appear to have misread my post. I wrote "Care is taken to ensure that none are taught as "fact" and none are taught as "myth.""

For instance, in Nibbleton, Religious Education is currently taught in a way that informs and teaches children about the different religious traditions of a variety of cultures, ranging from Judaism to Paganism. Care is taken to ensure that none are taught as "fact" and none are taught as "myth."

If you teach all religions as fact they will simply contradict each other. Christianity teaches Jesus to be the Saviour of the world. While a buddist believes in reaching nirvana through multiple tries. You cannot teach children that all is Truth while some contradict others. That will breed anarchy and lies.

JC of Jucorel
A Strong Christian president

You appear to have misread my post. I wrote "Care is taken to ensure that none are taught as "fact" and none are taught as "myth.""
You're right, my friend
JC from Jucorel

This proposal should not be something the U.N. should even be discussing. Every country allready has it's own laws regarding the integration of religion and government, and therefore it should be an issue that the local government alone deals with. There are quite a number of governments here that are based on religion and do not have the seperation of church and state that you must be assuming is the norm. I say no to this proposal.

If this were to become a UN resolution, I could not bring myself to vote for it unless it was expanded into a ban on all religion. In that, I mean a unilateral ban on all religion, everywhere. Religion has been poisoning the minds of the masses for too long, and it must be stopped.

Atheism is not a religion, no...

It's one thing to teach facts it's another to teach different forms of belief and mythology. I'm sure that Jews don't want to hear about all the tenets of Catholicism and vice versa. It's should be up to an individual to pursue knowledge on Judaism, Christianity, or Islam or any religion (or no religion, if they should so choose) and not have it unnecessariy thrust upon them by the education system.

We should all learn about each others belief to stop ignorance and hatred. Therefore, school is the best place to do this. Banning religion is juts part of an atheist agenda against religion.

Atheism is not a religion, no...

Not a religion but definitely a belief system: a belief in the non-existence of God(s). It can't be proved, any more than any religion can be proved.

SC

It's one thing to teach facts it's another to teach different forms of belief and mythology. I'm sure that Jews don't want to hear about all the tenets of Catholicism and vice versa. It's should be up to an individual to pursue knowledge on Judaism, Christianity, or Islam or any religion (or no religion, if they should so choose) and not have it unnecessariy thrust upon them by the education system.

We should all learn about each others belief to stop ignorance and hatred. Therefore, school is the best place to do this. Banning religion is juts part of an atheist agenda against religion.

I respectfully disagree. As a newcomer to the Christian faith (I accepted Jesus less than a week ago...as a result of a dream I had, which I posted about on a different thread) I have come to dind that religions and dogma and creed, and all that nonsense were created to HIDE the way. Spirituality rocks. Faith rocks. Religion sucks. My opinion.

I, as a Christian now, subscribe to NO man-made religion. What I have now is a one-on-one relationship with Jesus, and I need no church interposing itself into that one-on-one relationship.

I think that ALL religions should be studied allowing equal time spent with each of the major religions. However, unless a school is "advertised" as "religious" (i.e. a catholic school or a jewish school or a muslim school) then religion should not be the focus of schooling.

MORAL teachings should be encouraged (be this the morals of the country or area) but religious fantaticism should not be as this inevitably leads to conflict among differing opinions.

needless to say, in MY country, there is no state religion, only the worship of the glorious leader. :wink:

Atheism is not a religion, no...

Not a religion but definitely a belief system: a belief in the non-existence of God(s). It can't be proved, any more than any religion can be proved.

SC
Surely Atheism is the non-belief in the existance of God(s), not the belief in the non-existance of God(s). Or is that Agnostisism?. Or is that where you're unsure?

Surely Atheism is the non-belief in the existance of God(s), not the belief in the non-existance of God(s).

Same thing, more or less. It's belief you're dealing with either way, not proof.

Or is that Agnostisism?. Or is that where you're unsure?

Agnosticism is where you say you don't know and (I think) it isn't possible to know.

SC

In Adriano-Trace Secularism and Atheism are "recognized belief systems" in our "Freedom of Religious Belief" Act and are given equal acknowledgment with in our shcool systems. Every citizen of Adriano-Trace is fully aware that the preservation of their right to believe as they see it is based upon the respect and support of everyone elses right to the same, for once any particular or, indeed, all, religious beliefs are stiffled by the government in any way then everyone's right to believe as they wish is also jeopardized.

Therefore we view "personal religious discontent" ( which this proposal is an expression of) as a personal issue that is left to the individual with the "issue" to work out as a personal character flaw for haboring the inability to respect everyone's right to believe as they see fit, not as a matter of governmental policy.

I think this is a load of bull... banning religion is unconstitutional!! As stated in our constitution, we have the freedom of choosing our religion and practising it. As stated earlier in the forum, "Religion should only be banned because of violence."

When religion causes violence, that's when it is necessary for action to be taken. But if young children are taught about religion in a respectful, non-discriminate and unbiased way, then surely that would reduce the effect of violence induced by religious-related purposes.

What if my country only has one religion and I want to teach it to everyone within my country?

This is another proposal that concerns me. I would never support it, because once again, the UN here is infringing on a country's ability to stay sovereign and legislate proper law that can be enforced by their country. (I'll repeat this ad nauseum until people lose their minds, or make better proposals.)

This is a far more local issue than it is an international issue. The UN does not need to be a part of it, no matter what statement members of this group are trying to make. This is a simulation of country and world politics, not your free platform to stage a protest against something you want stopped.

This is another proposal that concerns me. I would never support it, because once again, the UN here is infringing on a country's ability to stay sovereign and legislate proper law that can be enforced by their country. (I'll repeat this ad nauseum until people lose their minds, or make better proposals.)

This is a far more local issue than it is an international issue. The UN does not need to be a part of it, no matter what statement members of this group are trying to make. This is a simulation of country and world politics, not your free platform to stage a protest against something you want stopped.

It is repugnant for one to be made to utter a prayer drafted by some bureaucratic functionary. :x

religion hmmm my religion is money and thats all i need to know

God is cool, yes. But organized religion sucks. I am tired of hearing man (or woman I guess) preaching about what HE (she) THINKS God has said and such and so.

I dont need the U.N. to tell me what to have my schools teach my kids. Period. That is an infringement of my peoples civil rights and I will not stand for such a proposal. If that is what the U.N. is all about, then maybe a group that is truly for peace and the betterment of man-kind should be made instead of this would-be agenda oriented dictatorship in the making.

My administration does not believe in spending public dollars on religious studies. That said, we will not support a resolution which would infringe on the rights of neighbor-nationstates.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I take issue with this statement:

"It is currently the case that many state schools across the world openly preach religion (mainly Christianity) to children from an early age. "

It is precisely because not enough Christianity is taught in schools that the world is in the mess it is. I have no problem with atheists taking their children out of religious instruction lessons if they feel they need to, but in my experience Christianity where it is taught in schools has a wholly beneficial effect on students, whether Christian or otherwise. You might as well ban teaching Mathematics because it causes problems for learning-disabled or Languages because they cause problems to dyslexics.

Delegate of Polyphonia

While this Confederacy is mostly homogeneous in terms of religion, our few immigrants (mostly Christians and Muslims) do wish to have their own establishments and so on. Therefore, state-run schools may not preach any religion, though comparative religion courses are offered.

However, private schools may preach religion and enforce prayer, as long as no physical or sexual harm comes to the students, and the institution follows the rules for required curricula.

Shaviv
Emissary

As a newer nation just recently settling here in the region of Ambrosia, we feel that the proposal makes a valid point. Though less of a point for Moral Decency, and rather a matter of Civil Rights, this proposal addresses the growing concerns of all nations, as they struggle to develop both economically and socially by welcoming diversity in their lands. However, with such diversity, there seems to come as well an issue of the majority rule. And here in would lay the problem...should the majority, in this case the majority which practices any certain religion, then dictate what is to be taught in schools? We believe the answer to this is a firm and unequivicable 'no'. The job of any educator, from the earliest years, such as preschool and kindergarten, all the way up to and including post-graduate school is to teach what is out there to be learned. Even perhaps, in the training taking place at corporations among their many workers to maintain superiority in an ever-changing industry, it should be
counted important to maintain an objective stance whilst educating the people. Such as it was in the Scopes trial, people of ignorance, filled with only knowledge of limited sources, demanded the schools not teach the theories and ideas of evolution, fighting viligantly to maintain the traditional teachings of their children the philosophy of creationsim.
Denying young minds opportunity to consider alternatives to traditional ideology undermines the very principals of learning: to explore, to consider, and to make educated decisions based upon findings developed through first hypothesis, trial, and finally, conclusion. It is therefore, simple science that is suggested here; not threat of change, or oppression of faith. It is, in fact a proposistion to offer opportunity to each hungry mind to feed upon the knowledge presented, no matter the source. And to offer then, opportunity to such young educated minds a choice. For without choice, the human condition becomes nothing more than blind obedience. Great pride can be had in knowing one has had a choice, an opportunity to make a decision. Whether such decision be found right or wrong, the fact is that each human of the species shall be endowed with the opportunity to choose his or her own path based on all that is available to learn. And isn't that the purpose for such open discussion, such availibity of forums like this one? It is for this reason, then, that in its entirety, The Grand Duchy of Ambrosianna fully intends to support Nibbleton's proposal.

I take issue with this statement:

"It is currently the case that many state schools across the world openly preach religion (mainly Christianity) to children from an early age. "

It is precisely because not enough Christianity is taught in schools that the world is in the mess it is. I have no problem with atheists taking their children out of religious instruction lessons if they feel they need to, but in my experience Christianity where it is taught in schools has a wholly beneficial effect on students, whether Christian or otherwise. You might as well ban teaching Mathematics because it causes problems for learning-disabled or Languages because they cause problems to dyslexics.

Delegate of Polyphonia

So we need more intolerance of gays and rejection of condoms in AIDS-endemic African nations? More indoctrination of children with dogma before they're old enough to consider religion for themselves? More anti-science creationists?

We keep maths and language teaching, even though those with learning disabilities struggle with them, because maths and languages are essential skills. Being told what to believe is not beneficial, in fact it's far better for people to be left to think it out for themselves - one they're more likely to come up with the truth through philosophical reasoning; and two, reasoning IS a useful skill, so by encouraging in schools debate and freedom of thought concerning religion (as opposed to telling kids what to think), you're actually developing their minds.

I would also like to note that I am offended by the comparison of not being Christian to having a disability.

The belief system of the most powerful group are almost always thrust down upon the weak one/ones.

I believe religion in schools should be optional, not banned. Banning religion in school is something of conforming to an atheist school instead.
It should be optional, noone should be forced to learn about Christeanity if they don't want too. It can take care of itself and God fights his own battles.

But if you ban my necklace-cross that the French did to their citizen (or are planning to do. Jaques Chiraq was considering it last time I tuned in. But it is probable) then I will nuke u. (I*M KIDDING! ... about the nuke thing)
In France people aren't allowed to wear crosses... in American schools ure not allowed to pray. gah... too tired to type... and anyways I wouldn't know how to express a religious idea in a political way without hurting the dandy-feelings of the modern humanitarian politician...

so good night

and if you ban my right to pray in school. By myself or with other Christeans. I would rather die then give in.

No man/woman is good, that is why one needs god. Where I'm going with this very religious argument is that people are not good. So we are violent. If you want to ban religion because it creates violence you might as well ban soccer in England.

--once again I add my futile request for nukes in this game--
--winters day

Err... That came out wrong.
I meant that some psycho groups in the world are violent, but that you can't blame a whole religion because those people are mad and insane or because someone teases you at school because they believe something else.

Err... That came out wrong.
I meant that some psycho groups in the world are violent, but that you can't blame a whole religion because those people are mad and insane or because someone teases you at school because they believe something else.

But it is unfair to force the religious beliefs of one group, even the majority group, on everyone. I am a recent convert from Agnostic to believer...I guess you'd say I was Christian now, since I have accepted Jesus as my personal Savior...but I tend to shy away from the "Christian" label, because so many have worked so diligently at giving the label negative connotations.
I fnd my new-found Christianity only serves to strengthen my convictions in liberal social policies, and politics....that tolerance and love are good things. Not all Christians are whackos...but I'll admit a lot are.
If you're interested, check out this site...
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org
If that don't work, try dot com or dot net. I think it is dot org, though.

My nation won't support it. This isn't a real big problem in my nation and it sounds like it you might have more luck trying to ban it in your own nation then in the United Nations. Religion is taught in my nation's public schools, not that one is right and the others are wrong but it teaches the moral parts of religion which all religions have in common and many schools do have clubs for students on campus like Christian clubs, Jewish clubs, Muslim clubs, etc

OOC: Well, this debate has become a lot better than I ever imagined.

IC:

It should be optional, noone should be forced to learn about Christeanity if they don't want too. It can take care of itself and God fights his own battles.

But if you ban my necklace-cross that the French did to their citizen (or are planning to do. Jaques Chiraq was considering it last time I tuned in.

I'm assuming by "learning about Christianity", you are referring to a lesson such as Religious Education. In effect this would be optional, as the childeren can't be forced to pay attention (unless your nation endorses corporal punishment, and thats hardly the Christian thing to do), as is the case (ooc: In my school).
Religious Education would basically try to make people aware of other religions, not force them to learn all of their teachings and traditions. Being an atheist but respecting your views, I wont go into "God fighting his own battles."
As for the banning of religious symbols, I am not suggesting this, I am merely suggesting that it is the preaching of religion that should be banned. Crosses, Head-Scarves and Kippurs (i apologise if that is spelt wrong) would not be effected by this.

Lastly, I would like to thank Ambrosianna for their support, and second _Myopia_'s statement that "I am offended by the comparison of not being Christian to having a disability"

Major Johnson,
Nibbleton

my nation would be strongly in favour of religion taught in schools, but not having religious schools - that is where one religion is put forward above all others. my nation finds the idea of forcing a single religion upon primary school children abhorrent, no matter how much they also claim tolerance towards people of other faiths. this said, we cannot descend to the position of france (in the real world) where the atheism of the state is such that muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarfs in school. this is of course representative of a wider issue - that of obvious displays of an individual's religion, which my nation (unlike france) would accept.

Jixie

The Protectorate-Governer of Bhoyland is shocked that one belief system (Atheism) should be allowed to make demands of any other theism. If Atheists wish to learn in an environment that does not include religion - they could easily choose to send their children to a non-denominational school (as most schools in Europe are).

Why was the person so horrified? For it to be a catholic priest would presume that the child is attending a Catholic school (no school of any other religion would invite a Catholic priest to preach) and as such should have been expected from the person. Catholic schools do allow non-Catholics to join, and allow them to sit out from religious events. This was another option open to the atheist in question. I distrust her motives if she has refused to take this option and instead wishes to foist her demands on those who do wish their children tobe educated in such an environment. As parents we make those choices on behalf of our children, and ther eis no difference between promoting a theism to our children as promoting atheism.

It should be noted by members that Catholic schooling is partly funded by the church and that these schools only exist in many parts of europe because Protestants refused to allow them to be taught in the same school as their children. Is it right that catholic schooling now be ended, a decision yet again decided by those who dislike the religion?

To remove a Catholic's right to be educated in a Catholic manner would be just the first step in removing their right to follow their religion at all.

I would suggest that the proposal be amended to allow Catholic schools to be exempt from this proposal until such time that they are fully government funded.

Bhoyland cannot support this resolution as is written, as it is a blanket proposal favouring non-theists at the expense of theists and shows a lack of understanding and tolerance.

To remove a Catholic's right to be educated in a Catholic manner would be just the first step in removing their right to follow their religion at all.

I would suggest that the proposal be amended to allow Catholic schools to be exempt from this proposal until such time that they are fully government funded.

The proposal clearly states that These resolutions need not apply in Privately-funded schools, or religion-specific schools.Catholic schools are religion-specific, and so would not be effected. This is because people who send their children to religion-specific schools, (such as Catholic, C of E, etc.) are clearly willing to allow them to be preached to about that particular religion.

Lietuveska would vote FOR such a resolution, if it made it through the proposal stage. We agree that religion cannot be sponsored by the state, and to do so limits the freedoms of many.

However, we must make sure that this does not limit anyone from displaying their religious beliefs. To do so would be very wrong, because freedom of religion and speech are just as important as other freedoms and equality.

Apologies for the misreading.

There is still however concern that the proposal will be misued - giving the right to not be preached to is admirable but taking away the right in state funded schools to those who DO wish to receive religious instruction would be immoral.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow/encourage people who do not wish to be given religious instruction to withdraw. This currently works well in countries where non-christians go to christian schools - the non-christians withdraw from those factes of school life (though there is the inequality where christians are not allow to withdraw from the facets involving non-christian life).

I am still confused as to whether it was a Catholic school or not - I cannot forsee any circumstances where a Catholic priest would be invited to preach to non-Catholic students. If it is a Catholic school, the point is moot.

The Protectorate-Governer of Bhoyland is shocked that one belief system (Atheism) should be allowed to make demands of any other theism. If Atheists wish to learn in an environment that does not include religion - they could easily choose to send their children to a non-denominational school (as most schools in Europe are).

Why was the person so horrified? For it to be a catholic priest would presume that the child is attending a Catholic school (no school of any other religion would invite a Catholic priest to preach) and as such should have been expected from the person. Catholic schools do allow non-Catholics to join, and allow them to sit out from religious events. This was another option open to the atheist in question. I distrust her motives if she has refused to take this option and instead wishes to foist her demands on those who do wish their children tobe educated in such an environment. As parents we make those choices on behalf of our children, and ther eis no difference between promoting a theism to our children as promoting atheism.

It should be noted by members that Catholic schooling is partly funded by the church and that these schools only exist in many parts of europe because Protestants refused to allow them to be taught in the same school as their children. Is it right that catholic schooling now be ended, a decision yet again decided by those who dislike the religion?

To remove a Catholic's right to be educated in a Catholic manner would be just the first step in removing their right to follow their religion at all.

I would suggest that the proposal be amended to allow Catholic schools to be exempt from this proposal until such time that they are fully government funded.

Bhoyland cannot support this resolution as is written, as it is a blanket proposal favouring non-theists at the expense of theists and shows a lack of understanding and tolerance.

But the fallacy in your argument is this: NOT promoting Theism is not the same as PROMOTING Athiesm. I believe religion has no place in public schools...period. Religion has no place in Government...period. Similarly, Government has no place in churches.
You want your children taught religion in school, then send 'em to a private, religious school of your choice. And pay for it yourself...not on the taxpayer's nickel.

All this said, I am sure some fundamentalist Christians will have a problem with what I just said...and will doubt my sincerity in having recently accepted Jesus. So be it, if you doubt. For man judgeth the outside, while the Lord judgeth the HEART. I care not what my fellow man thinks of my personal relationship with Jesus...and I care not for the "approval" of my fellow Believers.

But I still find it wrong to force religion down the throats of people who do not want it...and teaching religion in school is tantamount to doing exactly that...forcing it down the throats of people who may not want it...and may not want it taught to their children. They have that right.

NOW...all THAT being said...I would not support a U N BAN on teaching religion in schools...if some other nation wants to do it, bully for them. I think it is up to individual nations. After all, some nations in this NS world are very much based in religion, and could rightly be called Theocracies. So be it. But religion will not be taught in Labrador's public schools. Nor shall any student or group of students be PREVENTED from wearing religious symbols...or praying on their own, or in a prayer group or Bible study in their own time...either breaks or lunch hour. Valuable class instruction time shall not be given over to religion, however.

Apologies for the misreading.

There is still however concern that the proposal will be misued - giving the right to not be preached to is admirable but taking away the right in state funded schools to those who DO wish to receive religious instruction would be immoral.

I respectfully disagree. That is what CHURCH is for. go to church. go six days a week if you want! Knock yourself out. But NOT in public, state-funded schools...at least, not in Labrador!

Apologies for the misreading.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow/encourage people who do not wish to be given religious instruction to withdraw.

No...not if you are talking about a state-funded public school. The better solution THERE...is for those who wish to recieve religious instruction recieve it from the church of their choice. Or conduct prayer groups or Bible study during non-instruction hours, such as breaks and lunches.

Now, if you are talking about a RELIGIOUS school...a PRIVATELY-FUNDED religious school...then, your above solution would be applicable.

We are interested in your proposal and its relation to Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion…”). Forcing religious teaching clearly violates that right. Still we have some concerns. A few questions to clarify your proposal:

1. How do you define religion-specific schools? Can these schools receive public funds? If so, then member nations will simply designate schools “religion-specific” and ignore the spirit of the law. If not, how do you deal with parochial, religious sponsored private schools that also receive government funds for specific non-religious programs (i.e. school lunches, sports, or research).

2. What levels of education does this apply to and will it apply to the university, or just primary schools? Some of the greatest institutions of learning are church run and have religious agendas along with their other teaching agendas, but still receive government funding for specific programs and research projects (Georgetown, for instance is Jesuit run and Notre Dame run by the Order of the Holy Cross).

3. How do you deal with the issue of vouchers (as raised by Zoltansk) that are given by governments to parents who may then use them at schools of their choice, including those teaching religion.

4. How do you deal with theocratic states? Saudi Arabia and the Vatican, among others, derive their very legitimacy from religious beliefs and promotion of religion, and it would be unreasonable to expect them not to promote religion in their laws and education system from that belief. Perhaps your proposition leads to a broader argument against theocracy, but are you willing to pursue that argument? (As a factual side, we think you would find your statement about Christianity being the primary religion taught to be a bit inaccurate. Europe and the Americas, the places most densely Christian, are also the places most touched by the Enlightenment and thus are generally secular democracies. We think you would find a much higher concentration of religious teaching in public schools in the Middle Eastern part of the Islamic world.)

5. Would you be willing to add a provision that clearly protects individual student right to pray in schools as long as it is done at a time and a manner so as not to affect the educational process?

Re vera,
The People and Royal Monarch of Burkonia

Bad idea to ban religion in schools. If people learn about others' religion (most likely in school), they become religiously tolerant. If they don't, then the opposite might happen.

The Empire belives that religion shouldn't be allowed during a school day, however, the choice is the students and the parents. We belive that there should be a part of the day for prayer for those children who need or wish it, while the others can have a small break for approx 24 ghotes (approx. 5 US. minutes) This is the Empire's stand.

I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal. I am so sick of people trying to influence my religious agenda with their preachy propaganda. It is even worse when corrupt theological power structures brain wash people from youth. Even if you do chose to worship through a religion, doing it at school is a waste of time. When you go to school you expect to learn for 6 or 7 hours, not pray to some figmential, ubiquitous life force.

The legislature of Flark-upon-Moff has instituted a similar law within our own nation; however, be that as it may, a resolution such as this which bans religion from schools may not have a place within borders of the many members of the U.N. This is simply because some nations have almost literally -NO- religious diversity. In some nations where the national religion is tied inextricably to the national identity, such a resolution would do little but alienate such countries from the international community. It would force upon some nations international law that may not apply to them.

In conclusion, were this proposal to come before the United Nations in its current state, Flark-upon-Moff's representatives would have no choice but to vote against it.

However, if perhaps it were amended, we would re-consider our current position.

Instead of having the resolution apply universally, it might fare better if it only applied to nations that have more than 10% religious diversity, e.g. 90% Christian, 10% atheist/other. Countries in which 1 in 10 citizens are religious "dissenters" might do well to have a ban on religion in publicly-funded schools. It would not likely be necessary nor appropriate for other nations to have the same ban.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Prime Minster Clink, Flark-upon-Moff

Apologies for the misreading.

There is still however concern that the proposal will be misued - giving the right to not be preached to is admirable but taking away the right in state funded schools to those who DO wish to receive religious instruction would be immoral.

I respectfully disagree. That is what CHURCH is for. go to church. go six days a week if you want! Knock yourself out. But NOT in public, state-funded schools...at least, not in Labrador!

This is the basic point I'm trying to make.

Newton2 disagrees with this subject because of the following: If this was a passed law, freedom of religion and human rights would be thrown completely out of the question.
Schools should be able to teach or "preach" any subject they want. If a student is offended by it, they can just ask to leave the room. Really, not many students would be offended by that anyway, they would be learning about something new, which, if i'm not mistaken, is the whole point of school, learning something new.
If it confuses their view on the world, then they should just, as i said, simply ask to leave the room. :wink:

My Nation will only support the likes of catholics its my religion and it will be my nations religion if you want my veiws send me a telegram



sincerely
Prime Minister Whittaker, Man utd fans

If we ban religion from schools, then we must also ban anti-religious beliefs from schools as well. Such as the crack pot theory of evolution. I for one don't want my kids growing up thinking they evolved from monkeys.
I think a better solution would be to have both religious, and anti-religious subjects taught as electives.

The only sensible reason to ban "religion" is if it is violent.

Nicely said, this comment clearly shows the line drawn between national sovereighnty and international security issues. Rethelanuim is willing to accept an amended version of this proposal (since I do not have experience forming a proposal, I'll just give an explanation of it):
Banning government supported religion in schools infringes upon the (hopefully still UN-endorsed) idea of the rights of a country's leader to establish his own government. Such a proposal, in this form, especially overlooks the smaller nations (and the islands) that have one religion, or are unified by a state religion. Furthermore, the UN's concern lies with international security, and as long as religion does not encourage international hostility, the consequences remain for the country's leader to deal with. Teaching a child from an early age about the sinfullness of stealing and murder, for example, clearly does not threaten the safety of UN members, nor does it severely deny the child his/her security. The parent's moral objections stay within the country so that it is judged by the country's individual civil and moral laws.
However, the UN does have the right, and the obligation, to penalize nations that endorse education in violence,hate, and hostility toward another nation, not only on the basis of religion, but nationalist propaganda as well. Therefore, a nation has the right to decide by its own law codes and traditions the material taught in its public schools, as long as this education does not threaten the well-being and security of another nation.
((If anyone has the ability to rephrase this and make it into a proposal, Rethelanium will gladly support it, and bring up the matter to the delegate of the "Oppressed and Loving It" region.)

Therefore, a nation has the right to decide by its own law codes and traditions the material taught in its public schools, as long as this education does not threaten the well-being and security of another nation.


Perfectly put. The Most Serene Republic of Flark-upon-Moff concurs with the honorable representative from Rethelanium. The proposal in its current form will be rejected by our delegates.

We are on the verge of anarchism. As such, we don't really have schools. We use something completely different. This proposal is unenforceable on us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Excellent resolution. Go for it!

Freedom of religion should be paramount. If someone does not want to be preached to, they have every right to decline the offer. The person who attempted preaching must stop the activity immediately.


General Zircon, Desra

I went to a Catholic high school (though I do not believe in any form of religion, it was to please my parents). The school I attended was different from most others in that it not only taught Catholicism but others as well. The religion courses were just that, mixed religions being taught. Catholicism was the main one and carried on every year while 4 different religions were taught in addition to Catholicism.
I am all for religion being taught in school, but only if it is all religions and no one religion is focused on or promoted. I see it as a way to educated youth on the different forms of religion and hopefully breed acceptance.

To ban the discussion of, etc., religion in a school setting is to set up a false sense of security for those parents who wish for their child not to be 'exposed' to teachings which differ from home life. These children will eventually enter into the real world where information of all kinds is readily available. To shelter a child from conflict and then release him out into general society unprepared is, quite simply, cruel. Better the parents teach him or her from an early age how to deal with conflicting ideals.

this is freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. Religions are just as much a part of culture as language and events. Religions show the views, values, and even socioeconomic status of a nation. To completely ban the learning of all religion is wrong. There should be some fair, balanced elements of each religion taught. Now blatantly favoring one religion over the other is wrong. One's religion is one's choice. I personally am Christian as well as most of the Republic of Cogitandia. However we are tolerant of other religions and keep open to the ideas and prospects of other religions.

The term "religion" does not imply any specific religion, but a variety of spiritual teachings. I completely dislike the idea of schools preaching specific religions, even Christianity/Catholicism (my own religion) as I believe Nietzsche, the German philosopher got it right when he said "Christianity preaches people to not get the best out of this life".

I believe it's important for children to have a sense of sprituality, but certainly not have propaganda placed infront of their gullible eyes.

I disgaree, Alot of our education i based on taosim and buddism, and finding inner eace, rather then teaching people subjects such as maths, english geography, etc,etc. al;ot of students of find these subjects boring, and this also helps the nation to reduce crime

The term "religion" does not imply any specific religion, but a variety of spiritual teachings. I completely dislike the idea of schools preaching specific religions, even Christianity/Catholicism (my own religion) as I believe Nietzsche, the German philosopher got it right when he said "Christianity preaches people to not get the best out of this life".

I believe it's important for children to have a sense of sprituality, but certainly not have propaganda placed infront of their gullible eyes.

Nietzsche was a madman. atheism is a religion in itself, and a very strict one. the gold commandment of atheism "thou shall have no other gods but science. Hell thou shall have no gods at all". the relentless driving out of religious references from secular society is the commission of the devout atheist. to attempt to deny a society its spiritual beliefs is to knock the feet from under it. Your damn right a sense of spirituality is important - for everyone.

I like this proposal, I approve it.

You guys are missing the point. Do we want our schools teaching things that are untrue to our children, much less ideas like religion which must be believed with a sort of unquestioning fervour?
No matter what anyone believes, faith is the act of believing in something firmly despite not only having little evidence to support your belief, but often times knowing things that directly contradict it. This is not a virtue. I don't know where people got the idea that it is, but whatever.
Religions often have conflicting ideologies, and when you look at them they can't both be right. If the validity of an idea can be measured in how closely it corresponds to the truth, and I'd like to hear how else it might be measured, then not all religions are equally valid.
In fact, all religions are wrong, so don't start thinking I'm favoring one. There are ways the universe can exist without God, and these are all the most likely scenarios. It is time we started rationally examining this subject instead of just smiling at each other and agreeing to disagree.

You guys are missing the point. Do we want our schools teaching things that are untrue to our children, much less ideas like religion which must be believed with a sort of unquestioning fervour?
No matter what anyone believes, faith is the act of believing in something firmly despite not only having little evidence to support your belief, but often times knowing things that directly contradicts it. This is not a virtue. I don't know where people got the idea that it is, but whatever.
Religions often have conflicting ideologies, and when you look at them they can't both be right. If the validity of an idea can be measured in how closely it corresponds to the truth, and I'd like to hear how else it might be measured, then not all religions are equally valid.
In fact, all religions are wrong, so don't start thinking I'm favoring one. There are ways the universe can exist without God, and these are all the most likely scenarios. It is time we started rationally examining this subject instead of just smiling at each other and agreeing to disagree.

Hey,
I have posted on here before, and I usually don't agree with many of the things said. I am openly Christian, but I don't wanna force that on anyone. I agree with Catholic Europe. They make a good point. I do however wish to say this, in the United States, when the Bible and prayer were removed from school, test scores DROPPED 62%!!! Connection??? I think so. God said He will bless the "nation whose God is the LORD." American was based on Christian principles and in less than 200 years we became the most powerful nation on Earth.
Another little tidbit that ya'll haven't thought about is this, if you continue to teach religion in schools, but only as an elective course, someone will be offended in that class too. No matter what you do, you will step on toes. If you remove religion from schools totally, then you will offend many people. If you leave it in schools, you will offend someone. Personally, the school will not have that much hold over your children. What you teach your children, what you reinforce at home is hardly ever overrided by the school. Most people's children should just learn not to listen. You can't be offended if you don't listen. If you don't agree, then don't. Leave it alone. Many people don't always agree with evolution, but they sit through it and they don't make a big deal. Evolution could be branded as a religion because peopel believe it and hold it as law. So... if Christianity goes, so should evolution. In fact, why not school altogether? You can't narrow it down to one thing because people will always nail it down to something else too. Therefore, the Holy Empire of Listonethes will not now or ever support this idea or removal of religion from schools.

There is no connection between secularization and test scores. What would it be?
The difference between religion and evolution is that evolution probably happened.
Yes, you can decide upon true things. You do it by gathering together your options, eliminating as many as possible, and choosing the most likely as your answer. You then continue to test that answer. If someone says something that has previously been proven irrational, and offers no new reasons why it is true now, then they are still probably wrong.
And in all likelihood, God doesn't exist.
And America is starting to seem a little bit vicious right now. You citizens can hardly escape responsibility too, because last I heard, you lived in a democracy. For those among you who lament your situation, excuse me, I feel for you buddy.

The term "religion" does not imply any specific religion, but a variety of spiritual teachings. I completely dislike the idea of schools preaching specific religions, even Christianity/Catholicism (my own religion) as I believe Nietzsche, the German philosopher got it right when he said "Christianity preaches people to not get the best out of this life".

Never heard that one before. But a good one. Thing is, though....one CAN be a Christian, and get the best out of this life...so long as one doesn't fall for the dogma BS.

I am a Christian that rejects all forms of creeds and dogmas. What I have is a one-on-one relationship with Christ...and it need not be "validated" or "approved" of by any man...or any man-made institution, such as the church...which, IMHO, was only created to hide the way and the Truth...to interpose itself in that relationship. I will not allow that in MY relationship. Tis between Jesus and me. No one else. I didn't invite the church into our relationship.

The only sensible reason to ban "religion" is if it is violent.

There is good reason to ban any religion in schools or any public place.

I disagree. If a religion is violent, ban the violence, not hte religion. Religion is just a belief.

I believe that religions are inherently bad things. They're arbitrary systems of control, set about by people as human as you or I, only a 1000 years older and, let's face it, a 1000 times more naive (that applies to most people, not all). Religions, I think, are basically philosophies with some good ideas, some bad ones, but mostly bad ones. And people who ARE religious, who are "God-Fearing," who say they truly believe in their religions are some of the biggest hypocrits of all. Take, for example, a medieval crusader, a modern-day Muslim extremist or those in Ireland, and you'll see that for some unknown reason, though "God Himself" told all these people "Thou shalt not kill," it's perfectly fine to slaughter as many people as possible-so long as they're not the same religion. Which brings in another factor to all this. Religion as a way to say, "My god could beat up your god." At the center of many historical wars and conflicts, at their core is that idiotic, immature policy. Let me tell you right now, I do believe in a god, but if you ask me what particular religion I am, I really can't answer. One cannot possibly fully believe in all aspects of a single religion-it's just impossible. So I dabble in a little of what Jesus was talking about, a little of the old Judaic stuff, some Siddhartha's teachings, a little of Muhammed's stuff, and I'm good to go. But this is under my own will, what I choose to believe in. And that word choose is the key. Someone wants to think that a guy with a beard and a list of "who's naughty or nice" in the sky will send us into eternal fire if we believe in any ideology formed after 33 AD, let them knock themselves out. If they want to listen to what I think, I'll gladly tell them, but if they don't, I'll shut up. And that's the way it should be in schools. Ban the teaching of a single religion, but allow classes that teach the broad spectrum of ideas, from the beliefs of the Athenians to the beliefs of the Zulu. Allow atheism, as it is, ironically, a religion in it's own right. A fair, balanced, neutral stance is the only proper place for a child to learn in his or her own way. And to the gentleman who said something about, "after religion was outlawed, test scores dropped 60%." Have you ever stopped to think that, maybe the kids aren't doing so well because they're using words like "y'all?" And by the way, somehow, despite your intense belief in God, you still managed to misspell an already non-existant word ("ya'll," as you said it). Thank you.

Orhiikalon has it's fair share of non-religious schools, as well as it's fair share of religious schools, we feel it should be the school administrations choice alone. If you permanetly ban all schools from being religious you're practically forcing non-religion upon them, making this extremely hypocritical. To me, this proposal seems one-sided and the government of Orhiikalon sees no problem with the way schools are run now, if a family has a problem with one school, I feel it should be the governments role to not take away that schools right from being religious, but provide a choice for the child. Increase education spending so that more varied schools could be available, how about that for a resolution? We don't support this at all. What we support is the freedom to express religious views. Forcing religion out of school won't stop it from being openly public in other areas either.

Xawadiland supports this resolution.

Religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of mankind, all for something/one that we can't prove exists.

It should not be forced upon anybody. People who believe strongly in a god are often easily manipulted, as they have spent their life believing in a system with no logic behind it whatsoever. any logical arguments that are made against religion are just scorned. The arguments used by the religious against Atheists are outrageously stubborn and immature. So schools should be banned from teaching religion. Learning about religion is a different matter, and teachers should give unbiased views on the different beliefs held around the world.

Oh please, if you all care enough to get religion out of your schools, you should care enough to give your education departments more funding to provide other, non-relgious schools! The majority of people voting for this proposal are anti-religious to begin with and are making a desicion solely based on the fact that they don't believe in religion! If you ask me, your anti-religious beliefs are making you biased in this desicion. Religion has never been forced upon people in schools. I'm sitting here, debating against this proposal, this would be an example of being forced to believe something, I'm trying to persaude you to vote against it. Flat out. Now, I don't know about your schools, and if this sort of thing does happen in your schools, you, as in, solely your country, should deal with it. Don't destabalize other countries school systems because your school system is unbalanced. I personally, am agnostic, but I repsect other people's beliefs and have encouraged my ministers to do the same. If a school's administration chose to make their school religious, that is their belief, and even then, it is not forced upon the people who are not religious in that school. Provide government homeschooling programs for those who feel uncomfortable in their school enviroments as opposed to ruining it for everyone else in that school...

The Principality of Joshu supports this, as well.

It is quite evident that when matters of religion and state mingle, it only brings disaster. Religious minorities (in public schools) are frequently left out or ignored completely, and have the most popular religion practically shoved down their throats. If they have different beliefs than the majority, they are frequently told that those beliefs are wrong.

Also, in Global History classes, when the subject of religion is brought up, the major/official religion of the country is portrayed as truthful, right, and factually sound. On the other hand, other religions are displayed as whimsical fantasies, which are not to be believed at all.

That is why religion should not be preached in schools. A biased view of things alienates other religions. If religions are taught, not preached, then the students will receive an equal, level view of each religion shown, and will thus be able to make a choice entirely on their own merit.

(Trust me, I know about this. My History teacher last year did religion, and he was all for glorifying Christianity- especially Catholicism. When he got to Buddhism, he laughed it off, even though it makes a lot of sense.)

Religious wars are like two little kids fighting over who has the biggest imaginary friend.

Religion has never been forced upon people in schools.

Xawadiland has to correct you there. In some states in the USA (where they supposedly have total free speech) you can be sent to jail for teaching anything other than creationism. This is blatantly trying to 'dampen down' the capacity for independant thought, making people easier to lead.

And that's the countries own desicion, by forcing religion out of schools, we make it pro atheist. It's pointless, your swinging a double-edged sword.

Support. Why is it anyone else's concern who belives what? A person's religion should be kept private and realized for what it - completely and totally irrelevant. The only thing that should be taught in school is things that can proven (science), and if that conflicts with someone's personal beliefs? Well, that's just too damn bad.

Religion, I'd say, is like your sex life: nobody cares, nobody wants to know and PLEASE won't someone think of the children!? :D

And that's the countries own desicion, by forcing religion out of schools, we make it pro atheist. It's pointless, your swinging a double-edged sword.

I disagree. I was always under the impression that atheism was the lack of a religion. Thus, atheism. (No theology. Theology=religion).

I support this. If the religion was being forced upon the children it should be banned. Schools should be generic in there religion policies and not force upon any religion.

I support his claim. There is one very important point. Not everyone has a religion and to begin with, there are so many different religions in this world: Christanity, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, Buddaism, etc... You all want religion to be taught in schools? Well, good, that's very nice and kind of you guys and girls. But guess what? WHich religion? You have thousands to pick from. And another point, do you think everyone has a religion? No! Why waste a person's time at school with religion crap when they don't have a religion and don't want to change? Teaching a religion at a school over a period of time is to anb extent, forcing religion upon the person. Five days a week, a kid is bombarded with religious facts.

Thus, is religion bad? No! of course not! Not by a long shot! Why am I against religion being taught at public schools? Not all the kids are of the same religion is one thing. Second thing is that if a person does not have a religion, then why would you want to force something upon them? Sure, you may say, "I want to 'expose' them to religion to make them have a boarder knowledge for the world." Guess what? Does religion make money in this world? Yes. Does it make enough money to make a difference to the government and the economy? No! Therefore, religion is unimportant in today's society and thus should be banned from government funded schools.
1. It wastes money becuase you need to hire a teacher with the skills.
2. Not all people have a religion.
3. Why do you want to force religion upon someone?
4. If they want to have religion, they can go to a private school or church; what's so hard about that?
*5. For dicatorships, such as myself, ban religion because it promotes freedom and new and radical ideas that may lead to riots and the such.

For those who are against this, think about this: how can you say that teaching religion in public schools is not FORCING religion upon them? You are in a classroom where you get religion homework, you have religion tests and quizzes, and you have religon lectures one hour everyday, five times a week. You think that is not forcing? Are you trying to brainwash society with religion?

For dicatorships, ban everything. If you allow something small to grow, it will grow and grow and grow. Nip it in the bud. Ban religion from government funded schools!

Oh, one more thing, What I wrote is from a game perspective. Don't take anything offensively yeah? Good.

Remember, it is a game, don't boil over a heat argument, learn from it. Argue points, defend your points. A debate! Not a boiling cursing and the such.:)

Religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of mankind, all for something/one that we can't prove exists.


Actually, statism has. Almost every war has been started by a state(government).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

And that's the countries own desicion, by forcing religion out of schools, we make it pro atheist.

No. You make it secular and neutral

Religion has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of mankind, all for something/one that we can't prove exists.


Actually, statism has. Almost every war has been started by a state(government).



Uh, what about the Crusades? The Catholic Church sent thousands of troops into the Middle East in the name of God. And that's just one example. France had many religious wars in its early history, and even WWII had a religious beginning (Hitler was over-zealously Christian and hated Jews- thus, religiously motivated). And then there are, of course, the terror attacks made by Al Qaeda. Anyone who says that those attacks weren't religiously motivated doesn't know what they're talking about.

Yes, governments start wars. THEY HAVE TO. But the government starts all the wars, religious or not. Even if you got rid of government entirely, people would still argue over religion. We're stupid like that (as a species).

Uh, what about the Crusades? The Catholic Church sent thousands of troops into the Middle East in the name of God. And that's just one example. France had many religious wars in its early history, and even WWII had a religious beginning (Hitler was over-zealously Christian and hated Jews- thus, religiously motivated). And then there are, of course, the terror attacks made by Al Qaeda. Anyone who says that those attacks weren't religiously motivated doesn't know what they're talking about.

How much of a religious motivation was there for WWI or WWII? What about the American Civil War? All of those were started by governments. The American Revolution was also political. There are dozens of wars that aren't all that religious at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Hitler was Christian? From what I recall, he was fairly anti-religious. I'll have to look it up, though.

He's right. There aren't really more religious wars. The last religous war occured in Europe in 1618-1648. The name of the war?

The 30 years war.

Rarely is religion ever FORCED on anyone

I would argue that Religion is almost ALWAYS forced on people, at least for christians. For example, you're born and your parents are nice Christians so they decide you're going to be a nice Christian too, bam you're baptised, sent to sunday school and tossed into a christian school. Not like you have a choice, you're just a kid. So next comes the ol highschool, well odds are, if you and your friends all went to a christian gradeschool, you're going to go to a similar highschool, not necessarily because of you're religious beliefs, but because it's expected of you.

Then you get to your catholic or christian or whatever highschool, and you probably have masses every once in awhile. Of course you have to go to these, otherwise it's detention hooo. By the time you finally get a choice about you're own religion, you're 18 and you've either A. Rejected anything religious, or B. are so brainwashed from 18 yrs of religious propoganda filling your mind, you turn around, enter the 'real world' and start spouting stuff about homosexuality being a sin or some other bs, then turn around and raise your kids the same way.

But that's just what I think....

This proposal is only valid really for nation states who engage in seperation of church and state or some such, ergo, if its voted on in the U.N. you'll have a lot of countries who really have nothing to do with this proposal getting to easily dictate their socio-political/ideological/religeous mandate to other countries. It re-inforces seperation of church from state, thus allowing such nations to impose it on others.

Meep, interferes with national soverignty.

Meep, not valid as it does such.

A Rep of Komokom.

He's right. There aren't really more religious wars. The last religous war occured in Europe in 1618-1648. The name of the war?

The 30 years war.

Absolutely loads of wars were started by religion. A lot of the governments that go to war are influenced by religion. Look at all the conflicts in the middle east!

And, before the media began, religion was all anybody ever fought over. It's no good throwing up wars covered by the press, because you're only taking a small sample. Most of which were influenced by religion.

Also, religion has, in addition to directly causing wars, changed people's opinions. this means that a religious person in power goes to war, whilst an atheist recognises the utter pointlessness of the whole system.

I know of not one individual who can truely say they love god, life and truth and yet still be religious. The religions of this world have been tainted, modified and abused - they have become another system of control for the masses and any prudent political movement through out the history of man. God created man - Man created religion - the next logical step, concedering how much of a mess we've made of it is to ban it and proptly forget about it. With a clean slate the best way of life will be revealed to us by God himself - if you disagree, I question your faith in the true God.

BAN IT IN SCHOOLS - AND BAN ALL STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS - AND TAX THIER SORRY ASSES. ITS A START.

:lol:

Here, here.

Hitler was Christian? From what I recall, he was fairly anti-religious. I'll have to look it up, though.

Hitler may have been fairly anti-religious as well as his righthand man, the name slips my mind - but the masses they used and pumped full of propaganda had to be religious and as such needed Gods Blessings - somethign christians and the catholic church willingly provided when faced with the economics of the situation. The church loss its integrity centuries ago - and I use the term church as losely as possible.


What do you think the pope did when Hitler came to him for the social suport he needed to keep his troops inline? The church became his little plaything.
BAN IT - BAN EM ALL
At least Tax it for Christ sake ;)

I believe that religions are inherently bad things. They're arbitrary systems of control, set about by people as human as you or I, only a 1000 years older and, let's face it, a 1000 times more naive (that applies to most people, not all). Religions, I think, are basically philosophies with some good ideas, some bad ones, but mostly bad ones. And people who ARE religious, who are "God-Fearing," who say they truly believe in their religions are some of the biggest hypocrits of all. Take, for example, a medieval crusader, a modern-day Muslim extremist or those in Ireland, and you'll see that for some unknown reason, though "God Himself" told all these people "Thou shalt not kill," it's perfectly fine to slaughter as many people as possible-so long as they're not the same religion. Which brings in another factor to all this. Religion as a way to say, "My god could beat up your god." At the center of many historical wars and conflicts, at their core is that idiotic, immature policy. Let me tell you right now, I do believe in a god, but if you ask me what particular religion I am, I really can't answer. One cannot possibly fully believe in all aspects of a single religion-it's just impossible. So I dabble in a little of what Jesus was talking about, a little of the old Judaic stuff, some Siddhartha's teachings, a little of Muhammed's stuff, and I'm good to go. But this is under my own will, what I choose to believe in. And that word choose is the key. Someone wants to think that a guy with a beard and a list of "who's naughty or nice" in the sky will send us into eternal fire if we believe in any ideology formed after 33 AD, let them knock themselves out. If they want to listen to what I think, I'll gladly tell them, but if they don't, I'll shut up. And that's the way it should be in schools. Ban the teaching of a single religion, but allow classes that teach the broad spectrum of ideas, from the beliefs of the Athenians to the beliefs of the Zulu. Allow atheism, as it is, ironically, a religion in it's own right. A fair, balanced, neutral stance is the only proper place for a child to learn in his or her own way. And to the gentleman who said something about, "after religion was outlawed, test scores dropped 60%." Have you ever stopped to think that, maybe the kids aren't doing so well because they're using words like "y'all?" And by the way, somehow, despite your intense belief in God, you still managed to misspell an already non-existant word ("ya'll," as you said it). Thank you.

You sound like the classic heretic who would do well in a Unitarian Universalist church, such as I attend. There, you are exposed to many different beliefs...you take that what works for you...and leave that which doesn't.

As to the other thing... "y'all" is just a contraction for "you all" and is perfectly acceptable, if not grammatically "propr" English. It is more commonly used down South, such as Texas, where I live in RL.

At least it's better than "you's guys" like they say up in New York and New Jersey! That isn't even acceptable English, let alone "proper." "YOU guys" would be appropriate in that case...not "you's guys."

So quit making the implication that Southerners are stupid. I really hate that shit.

Religious wars are like two little kids fighting over who has the biggest imaginary friend.

Now THAT, Global, is quite frankly the first intelligent thing I have ever heard you say!

Uh, what about the Crusades? The Catholic Church sent thousands of troops into the Middle East in the name of God. And that's just one example. France had many religious wars in its early history, and even WWII had a religious beginning (Hitler was over-zealously Christian and hated Jews- thus, religiously motivated). And then there are, of course, the terror attacks made by Al Qaeda. Anyone who says that those attacks weren't religiously motivated doesn't know what they're talking about.

How much of a religious motivation was there for WWI or WWII? What about the American Civil War? All of those were started by governments. The American Revolution was also political. There are dozens of wars that aren't all that religious at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. But thanks for playing.
The Civil War had a lot of foundation in religion...the South felt that the Bible not only allowed for slavery, but ADVOCATED it. They believed that whites were to be in a superior position to blacks, and that, by being a good slave, the black was doing what the Lord would have wanted them to do.

Not that I agree with this...but it IS what was widely believed, on religious grounds, in the South, in the 19th Century...and it did lead to the Civil War.

I know of not one individual who can truely say they love god, life and truth and yet still be religious. The religions of this world have been tainted, modified and abused - they have become another system of control for the masses and any prudent political movement through out the history of man. God created man - Man created religion - the next logical step, concedering how much of a mess we've made of it is to ban it and proptly forget about it. With a clean slate the best way of life will be revealed to us by God himself - if you disagree, I question your faith in the true God.

BAN IT IN SCHOOLS - AND BAN ALL STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS - AND TAX THIER SORRY ASSES. ITS A START.

:lol:

Hmmm..the way you phrase it is open for misinterpretation, but I see what you are saying...and you're right.

You'll notice I said earlier that I am a Christian who rejects all forms of religion and dogma.

I didn't invite these things into MY personal relationship with the Creator...and my relationship with Him needs no "approval" from other men. Thus it is I engage in spirituality, not religiousity...and I suspect this is part of what you meant by that statement.

He's right. There aren't really more religious wars. The last religous war occured in Europe in 1618-1648. The name of the war?

The 30 years war.

Absolutely loads of wars were started by religion. A lot of the governments that go to war are influenced by religion. Look at all the conflicts in the middle east!

And, before the media began, religion was all anybody ever fought over. It's no good throwing up wars covered by the press, because you're only taking a small sample. Most of which were influenced by religion.

Also, religion has, in addition to directly causing wars, changed people's opinions. this means that a religious person in power goes to war, whilst an atheist recognises the utter pointlessness of the whole system.

Correct. Let me ask you something though, do you think that they battle in the middle east is a war? Maybe. If it is, it must be a very small war. Actually, these days, there is no war. According to a dictionary definition:
war is: "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

Alright fine, that's a war. Then you basically can classify everything as a war. Two parties right? Students and teachers. America vs. Iraq. Justice vs. terrorism. I guess you could argue it that way. Here's what i am referring to.

To me, war is a huge battle. Not involving a few small nations. No. It affects the world like WWI, WWII, and so on. THe war in the middle east does affect us, to an extent. Greatly? No. Sort of, but not big enough to create a great impact. Did WWI impact us? You bet! Did WWII impact us? You bet! Does the middle esat war impact us? You bet! As much as WWI and WWII? No. The 30 year's war was a european war, excluding Britain. Those Englishmen, sigh, tied up in a civil war. Long Parliament and so on. Anyway, I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, I didn't. I was referring to major wars. The 30 years war affected Europe, most of Europe. France, Norway, Prussia, Holy Roman Empire, and etc. Anyway, it all depends on your definition of war.

To me, the battle of Verdun is a war. 700,000 people died. The middle east war, how many died? 700,000? Probabaly not. Religion does stir up wars. Like you, I agree, ban religion. I just wanted to clarify my point.

Uh, what about the Crusades? The Catholic Church sent thousands of troops into the Middle East in the name of God. And that's just one example. France had many religious wars in its early history, and even WWII had a religious beginning (Hitler was over-zealously Christian and hated Jews- thus, religiously motivated). And then there are, of course, the terror attacks made by Al Qaeda. Anyone who says that those attacks weren't religiously motivated doesn't know what they're talking about.

How much of a religious motivation was there for WWI or WWII? What about the American Civil War? All of those were started by governments. The American Revolution was also political. There are dozens of wars that aren't all that religious at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Bzzzt. Wrong answer. But thanks for playing.
The Civil War had a lot of foundation in religion...the South felt that the Bible not only allowed for slavery, but ADVOCATED it. They believed that whites were to be in a superior position to blacks, and that, by being a good slave, the black was doing what the Lord would have wanted them to do.

Not that I agree with this...but it IS what was widely believed, on religious grounds, in the South, in the 19th Century...and it did lead to the Civil War.

You are correct, but foolish. If you think slavery was the main cause of the civil war, go read a history book. Religion played a role, but not a big role. Obviously, you don't really know American history. Before the Civil War, America was in a balance between slave states and free states. Eventually, California broek the balance between slave and free states. There were 16 free states and 15 slave states. Now, with an unbalance of powers, who has the power in Congress? The free states. Thus, if you were living in a slave state, would you want to live in a nation where the balance of power was against you? NO! Of course not! Therefore, the South ceded away! What was the Union to do? Preserve it of course! Therefore, they went to war.

Slavery. According to laws back then, slaves are property. Mostly used for manual labor. Religion was not used as an arguement. Most likely though, the 3/5 Compromise was still in effect. Anyway, religion has a small part, very small. To people back then and now, power in Congress plays a very important role. People did not ceded because of religious reasons. That's stupid. They ceded because the South was in a nation that was dominated by free states. The South needed slaves to make money. If the Noth Abolished slavery, the South has no income and the people will die.

Also, did you know that the Southern white people were mostly non-slave holders? Huh? Slaves were expensive back then, about $1000 each. Most of the poor whites were what the slaves called, "poor white trash." They were. Now, why did they, the poor whites, wanted to keep slavery? Because it gives them superiority to them. They have a higher ranking then someone in society.

My conclusion is that religion had just as much an affect on the Civil War as a comet has on a sun, which is very little.

By the way, on a lighter note, I'm pro-slavery in the game, nationstates because it provides more labor and money.

In real life, I'm 100% anti-slavery because it is morally wrong.

Hitler was Christian? From what I recall, he was fairly anti-religious. I'll have to look it up, though.

Hitler may have been fairly anti-religious as well as his righthand man, the name slips my mind - but the masses they used and pumped full of propaganda had to be religious and as such needed Gods Blessings - somethign christians and the catholic church willingly provided when faced with the economics of the situation. The church loss its integrity centuries ago - and I use the term church as losely as possible.


What do you think the pope did when Hitler came to him for the social suport he needed to keep his troops inline? The church became his little plaything.
BAN IT - BAN EM ALL
At least Tax it for Christ sake ;)

Just for reference, Hitler was Catholic. Joseph Goebbels I believe lead the propaganda thing. I think his right hand man is the leader of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.

A comment on Hitler. I'm no Hitler fan. Using my first ammendment rights, I believe Hitler to be a great man. Why? He rose from nothing and became dicator of Germany and started WWII. Amazing isn't it? Why I don't like him is for his Holocost and his insane mind. Honestly, if he wanted to take over the world, his greatest error was attacking U.S.S.R. and Stalin. Geez. Bad move. His blitzkrieg, "lighting war", was a stroke of genius. Anyway, he was a brillant man and a cruel man. Brillant to create such an empire and cruel to kill 6 million Jews.

Hitler was Christian? From what I recall, he was fairly anti-religious. I'll have to look it up, though.

Hitler may have been fairly anti-religious as well as his righthand man, the name slips my mind - but the masses they used and pumped full of propaganda had to be religious and as such needed Gods Blessings - somethign christians and the catholic church willingly provided when faced with the economics of the situation. The church loss its integrity centuries ago - and I use the term church as losely as possible.


What do you think the pope did when Hitler came to him for the social suport he needed to keep his troops inline? The church became his little plaything.
BAN IT - BAN EM ALL
At least Tax it for Christ sake ;)

Just for reference, Hitler was Catholic. Joseph Goebbels I believe lead the propaganda thing. I think his right hand man is the leader of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.

A comment on Hitler. I'm no Hitler fan. Using my first ammendment rights, I believe Hitler to be a great man. Why? He rose from nothing and became dicator of Germany and started WWII. Amazing isn't it? Why I don't like him is for his Holocost and his insane mind. Honestly, if he wanted to take over the world, his greatest error was attacking U.S.S.R. and Stalin. Geez. Bad move. His blitzkrieg, "lighting war", was a stroke of genius. Anyway, he was a brillant man and a cruel man. Brillant to create such an empire and cruel to kill 6 million Jews.

Hitler was Christian? From what I recall, he was fairly anti-religious. I'll have to look it up, though.

Hitler may have been fairly anti-religious as well as his righthand man, the name slips my mind - but the masses they used and pumped full of propaganda had to be religious and as such needed Gods Blessings - somethign christians and the catholic church willingly provided when faced with the economics of the situation. The church loss its integrity centuries ago - and I use the term church as losely as possible.


What do you think the pope did when Hitler came to him for the social suport he needed to keep his troops inline? The church became his little plaything.
BAN IT - BAN EM ALL
At least Tax it for Christ sake ;)

Just for reference, Hitler was Catholic. Joseph Goebbels I believe lead the propaganda thing. I think his right hand man is the leader of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.

A comment on Hitler. I'm no Hitler fan. Using my first ammendment rights, I believe Hitler to be a great man. Why? He rose from nothing and became dicator of Germany and started WWII. Amazing isn't it? Why I don't like him is for his Holocost and his insane mind. Honestly, if he wanted to take over the world, his greatest error was attacking U.S.S.R. and Stalin. Geez. Bad move. His blitzkrieg, "lighting war", was a stroke of genius. Anyway, he was a brillant man and a cruel man. Brillant to create such an empire and cruel to kill 6 million Jews.

Hitler was Christian? From what I recall, he was fairly anti-religious. I'll have to look it up, though.

Hitler may have been fairly anti-religious as well as his righthand man, the name slips my mind - but the masses they used and pumped full of propaganda had to be religious and as such needed Gods Blessings - somethign christians and the catholic church willingly provided when faced with the economics of the situation. The church loss its integrity centuries ago - and I use the term church as losely as possible.


What do you think the pope did when Hitler came to him for the social suport he needed to keep his troops inline? The church became his little plaything.
BAN IT - BAN EM ALL
At least Tax it for Christ sake ;)

Just for reference, Hitler was Catholic. Joseph Goebbels I believe lead the propaganda thing. I think his right hand man is the leader of the SS, Heinrich Himmler.

A comment on Hitler. I'm no Hitler fan. Using my first ammendment rights, I believe Hitler to be a great man. Why? He rose from nothing and became dicator of Germany and started WWII. Amazing isn't it? Why I don't like him is for his Holocost and his insane mind. Honestly, if he wanted to take over the world, his greatest error was attacking U.S.S.R. and Stalin. Geez. Bad move. His blitzkrieg, "lighting war", was a stroke of genius. Anyway, he was a brillant man and a cruel man. Brillant to create such an empire and cruel to kill 6 million Jews.