NationStates Jolt Archive

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Because people like bush try to make their religion part of everyone's life, no matter what other people think.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Not everyone wants to deal with religion. It should be kept separate from the state, which just happens to run public schools.

knowledge for about 80% of the world's population
But decreasing. Also, religion is taken out of shools because teaching religion in public schools is discrimanation!

I agree, we get some religion taught over here in England but not enough, it should have more bearing on school curiculums. Even if someone isn't religious it wouldn't hurt them to learn it; if only to study the beliefs of others.

I don't think it's scorned upon so much as it's fear that keeps it from being taught. Fear that you'll offend someone, somewhere and they'll come down on you and take all your money...

Having said that, it is taught in Britain.

i learned religion in school... but then again, i went to a catholic school. but i have seen other non-religious based schools teach religion here. are you talking specifically about where you are or the world in general?

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

languages, maths, sciences, arts and humanities are more important than religions in my opinion. take religion classes in college...

When I was at school we were taught about religion but we weren't taught religion.

Seems the right way to go for me.

In our faith, you keep what you kill.

Where was I… Dragons Bay, you live in China, am I correct? The Chinese authorities don't really like religion… they fear it. It's a slightly different fettle of kish in Western countries… although I gave up RS as quickly as I could because the syllabus was useless. I don't know what it's like in the rest of Europe, or in America.

I don't like religion being taught in science class but have no problem with religious studies as a subject.

I think the problem people have with teaching religion is the fault of fundamentalists, which is unfortunate for the religious people who can live fine with everyone else. Teaching religion, or mixing religion and politics has usually involved forcing one dominant religion on everyone.

But as for teaching religion, the problem is whether you teach from that religion's point of view or look critically at all religions equally. People don't like having other religions forced on them, but how many Christians would want their religion to be taught critically, and on equal terms with other religions and even mythoogy?

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion.

Because in some countries, the leadership (of either the country or the school) would use Religious Education to impose that religion on the children.

I speak from experience. I attended a school that imposed prayer, hymns and R.E was nothing more than a sermon, worded so that Christianity was truth. When we were taught about "other" religions, it was regarded as a mere myth, and they had no idea about them i.e they were confused about the true meaning of the swastika. Worse yet, I remember hearing that Muslims do not like pictures of Mohammed. We were told to draw pictures of him. Offensieve and idiotic.

Luckily the school I now attend is about as neutral as possible.

languages, maths, sciences, arts and humanities are more important than religions in my opinion. take religion classes in college...
THAts RIGHT! Personally, I believe that religion is no longer needed. In some places students are REQIURED to take religion, and that must be stopped, as it is discrimination.

If religon would ever be taught in public schools it should be in a class that just basically goes over all main stream religons and it should be an elective class, that way if yall dont like somthing you dont have to take it.

THAts RIGHT! Personally, I believe that religion is no longer needed. In some places students are REQIURED to take religion, and that must be stopped, as it is discrimination.

*hands you a box of cookies*

THAts RIGHT! Personally, I believe that religion is no longer needed. In some places students are REQIURED to take religion, and that must be stopped, as it is discrimination. Yes, they are, required to learn about others' religions and the religions of other countries. Don't jerk your knee too hard, you might hit somebody.
(Having said that, RS really was taught in a shite way, in my experience)

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Religion is unfortunately not a source of knowledge for anyone, or at least not any of the Abrahamic ones. They require faith, and knowledge destroys faith. Further, even if a religion were to give absolute knowledge, there is no religion that 80% of the people of the world practice. So which religion do you teach? The major ones? The majority one? All?

I've no personal objection to courses that teach about religions; but I imagine that they would be handled the same way we might look at the ancient Greek myths. The fact is that holy books are inherently philosophical, and many of them do have some literary merit. I think (and I could be wrong) that the main objection most people have to religious courses is that it's very easy to go from "this is how some people think it is" to "this is how it is" when you're teaching about religions that modern people practice. Of course, there are certainly athestic bigots out there who won't tolerate anything taught contrary to what they believe; they're as bad as the fundies who want to put warning stickers in science textbooks about the 'Theory of Gravity."

I was taught religion at school up to the age of 18. I was educated in a school in UK which is part of the Church Schools group. I'm now a humanist :)

It may be a source of knowledge for 80% of the world's population, but the same religion is not this source for every person of that 80%. Some people turn to Christianity, Islam, etc. If you were going to teach one religion, you would have to teach all of them so as not to discriminate. There are so many religions that much of the school year would be spent teaching religion and not other subjects that would help children get jobs when they're adults. Isn't preparing children for the work force one of the primary functions of education?

Anyways, in my school last year in Global Studies we learned about the major religions of today: Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. We spent about a few days on each (a day being a 40 minute period). IMO anything more than that would be wasting time.

Because in some countries, the leadership (of either the country or the school) would use Religious Education to impose that religion on the children.

I speak from experience. I attended a school that imposed prayer, hymns and R.E was nothing more than a sermon, worded so that Christianity was truth. When we were taught about "other" religions, it was regarded as a mere myth, and they had no idea about them i.e they were confused about the true meaning of the swastika. Worse yet, I remember hearing that Muslims do not like pictures of Mohammed. We were told to draw pictures of him. Offensieve and idiotic.

Luckily the school I now attend is about as neutral as possible.

You were told to draw Mohammed just because that's offensive to Muslims? That's prety sick...

Religion is unfortunately not a source of knowledge for anyone, or at least not any of the Abrahamic ones. They require faith, and knowledge destroys faith. Further, even if a religion were to give absolute knowledge, there is no religion that 80% of the people of the world practice. So which religion do you teach? The major ones? The majority one? All?

I've no personal objection to courses that teach about religions; but I imagine that they would be handled the same way we might look at the ancient Greek myths. The fact is that holy books are inherently philosophical, and many of them do have some literary merit. I think (and I could be wrong) that the main objection most people have to religious courses is that it's very easy to go from "this is how some people think it is" to "this is how it is" when you're teaching about religions that modern people practice. Of course, there are certainly athestic bigots out there who won't tolerate anything taught contrary to what they believe; they're as bad as the fundies who want to put warning stickers in science textbooks about the 'Theory of Gravity." Agreed.

btw, Indoctrination's a stupid idea even if you do find it morally acceptable, it only leads to rebellion and rejection of the indoctrinated ideas. (Look at Noble Men)

Also, religion is taken out of shools because teaching religion in public schools is discrimanation!

This is just the kind of ridiculous attitude that has made Britian like it is today! We are ruled by minority groups dictating are every word and action. Also teaching religion is NOT discrimination. How can learning be discriminate. It could be classed if you were forced to take up a religion but not learning about it! I am a christian and I agree with dragon bay 100% religion is being cut out every were and scorned upon. I am often quite angry about this attitude to all religions :headbang:

But decreasing. Also, religion is taken out of shools because teaching religion in public schools is discrimanation!

Teaching CHRISTIANITY in schools is discrimanation :rolleyes: . My school still offers religion courses, just not Christian ones, because it might offend the 2 muslims we currently have enrolled here :rolleyes:

My first semester I'm learning the Qu'ran! Yay!

THAts RIGHT! Personally, I believe that religion is no longer needed. In some places students are REQIURED to take religion, and that must be stopped, as it is discrimination.

I'm not quite sure how it's discrimination to be taught about religions . It'd be just like learning world-culture, as religion has deeply affected the way most societys (have) run.

I see no reason why not to teach religion.

just make it an optional course....

My school did, it was after school mind you, but it was a legal credit.

Still i see ho harm, at the very least they should make it an after-school subject.

I see no reason why not to teach religion.

just make it an optional course....

My school did, it was after school mind you, but it was a legal credit.

Still i see ho harm, at the very least they should make it an after-school subject.

I see a lot of harm in it. I wouldn't want some dipshit making it mandatory for MY kids to learn about religion.

How can so many people not understand this issue? You simply cannot explain it to them.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion.
I know that I was taught about religion in school.
In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.
Well, here in the US, that isn't true.
Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.
See, here's the thing. You and many others may believe that religion is an important source of knowledge. Perhaps that is true. But, unless one can prove it objectively, what gives one the right to decide what others can and can't do based on it? Especially since this political involvement with religion has often involved quashing others' rights. It shouldn't be the case that we be allowed to take away others rights without proof, should it?

I believe your "it's so scorned upon" thing isn't quite true. Here in the US, many of our politicians base their decisions on their interpretation of the Bible. And they are elected into office by people who support that. On top of that, I haven't seen oppression of religion here either.
Although, I had forgotten that you aren't from the US. Perhaps your statement is true where you live?

Also, it isn't as though lack of religion is taught and enforced either. Schools are not teaching atheism, and politicians are not required to believe in the nonexistance of God in order to make decisions.

And finally, a question to determine what exactly your stance is:
You want religion to be recognized in politics and taught in schools. Would you support a Hindu politician using his or her religion to decide law? How about a Wiccan? How about a Satanist?

I see no reason why not to teach religion.

just make it an optional course....

My school did, it was after school mind you, but it was a legal credit.

Still i see ho harm, at the very least they should make it an after-school subject.

Oh noes, we can't have that! Some of the mommies and daddies don't want to pay extra taxes to the school for teaching about primitive ideals and culture systems in order to expand their childrens' minds! The bad bad school systems! </sarcasm>

But in all seriousness, I will admit that there will be people who will try to push their religious agendas on children who are of different beliefs than theirs should this happen. Then again, there are those who push evolutionary agendas on those who don't accept it as fact as well. Perhaps we should make evolution optional alongside religion? Hmm...

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

If you mean Religious Studies, then sure I would have no problem with it. Of course, you can take such classes in college.

On the other hand, if you're talking about giving Organized Religion a place in the classroom, then I have to ask, which one?

- ME -

I see a lot of harm in it. I wouldn't want some dipshit making it mandatory for MY kids to learn about religion. You'd rather have them ignorant of Islam, and only hearing things about terrorism?

Educating people ABOUT religion is not educating them IN religion. Big, big difference.

You were told to draw Mohammed just because that's offensive to Muslims? That's prety sick...

Not quite. I was told to draw him DESPITE the offense. Maybe they knew of it, probably not. They were just ignorant. And most likely still are.

You'd rather have them ignorant of Islam, and only hearing things about terrorism?

Educating people ABOUT religion is not educating them IN religion. Big, big difference.

Eh, I guess I should've worded it differently. That's what I mean --- I wouldn't want my kids being taught religion.

Still, there's a danger even in doing that in America. There are far too many christian zealots who would take it upon themselves to indoctrinate entire classrooms.

All I have to say is if you're going to refute a religion, you best know more about it than the people who follow it.

I've already started a book about the history of religion.

I have no problem taking a comparitive class on religions. It's important to note that there is a large difference between a class on religion, and a religious class, a distinction that seems to be lost on many people.

Not quite. I was told to draw him DESPITE the offense. Maybe they knew of it, probably not. They were just ignorant. And most likely still are.

Just an example as to why we need to be taught about religion and the cultures they have affected. By doing so, it will help (I'm realistic enough to admit it won't cure, but still) others unfamiliar with cultures recognize their beliefs and respect them without causing unintentional offenses. At least...for the most part. Extremists from any stance pretty much take offence at anything that isn't under their sun.

religion causes to many wars in my opinion. take Israil and Palistien stuff (sorry for spellings guys) they're raging each other because of religion. Catholics and Protestants keep attacking each other and crazy stuff like that. religion shouldnt be banned from schools, but it should be optional to eb honest, maybe it could be taught at an age like 4-10 then it could be optional, that would be much better for children to learn.

WALKER

What is so wrong about teaching (insert religion) as an optional course after school hours as a recognized credit?!

Or even on school hours, i don't care!

Optional does not mean they are forced to take it!!!! *fumes*

religion causes to many wars in my opinion. take Israil and Palistien stuff (sorry for spellings guys) they're raging each other because of religion. Catholics and Protestants keep attacking each other and crazy stuff like that. religion shouldnt be banned from schools, but it should be optional to eb honest, maybe it could be taught at an age like 4-10 then it could be optional, that would be much better for children to learn.

WALKER


It is not fought over religion...but that is beside the point.

I agree, make teaching religion optional in school.

religion causes to many wars in my opinion. take Israil and Palistien stuff (sorry for spellings guys) they're raging each other because of religion. Catholics and Protestants keep attacking each other and crazy stuff like that. religion shouldnt be banned from schools, but it should be optional to eb honest, maybe it could be taught at an age like 4-10 then it could be optional, that would be much better for children to learn.

WALKER

Welcome to NS General, Walker! *gives orientation basket full of coupons and goodies*

But to address your point, I don't think it's the religions per se that start wars. It's those that "follow" them, and I use that term very loosely. The religions that actually command violence in their name are in the minority. Unfortunately, those who follow most reigions take it upon themselves to reconstrue the original intents and context to mean what they want it to mean and justify their actions. I wouldn't blame the religions, just the majority of morons who follow them.

But yes, such a class should be optional. If people really don't want their children to learn about (and I can't stress that word enough) religion, then they shouldn't have to, I guess. But don't take it out on those who do want to. That would be most unfair.

religion causes to many wars in my opinion. take Israil and Palistien stuff (sorry for spellings guys) they're raging each other because of religion. Catholics and Protestants keep attacking each other and crazy stuff like that. religion shouldnt be banned from schools, but it should be optional to eb honest, maybe it could be taught at an age like 4-10 then it could be optional, that would be much better for children to learn.

WALKER

I disagree with the ages there.

Anything you teach kids at that age will stick with them. I've seen a lot of little kids helplessly being sucked into a faith at that age because they will believe what they are told. What children need to be learning at that age is acceptance, flexibility, honor, and all that good stuff. If they can learn to live as good people without the pressure of doing what God or whomever likes, and just be decent and honorable on their own (the real kind of good, not the good to avoid consequences), then you can let them decide who they follow, or what they want to learn about.

Do not indoctrinate any children.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

I don't ever recall having a choice in whether I attended RE lessons or not. Religion has nothing to do with knowledge - historically, the big religions of the world have done everything in their power to suppress knowledge. They'd rather we accept everything on blind faith.

I would have no problem with theology lessons being taught in class, where the history of various religions are laid open to scrutiny. However, if you want to indoctrinate your child into a particular faith, there are churches and mosques for that.

Just remember that it's legal unless you leave marks.

Yes, they are, required to learn about others' religions and the religions of other countries. Don't jerk your knee too hard, you might hit somebody.
(Having said that, RS really was taught in a shite way, in my experience)
Where are you from? Some nations have a state religion, which you must learn in school. And I mean learn in the religion, you know, the scriptures, that stuff. Not just learn about it. Were you ever in a religion classrom? I know I actually was once, and I swore to never enter that type of torture facility again.

I don't ever recall having a choice in whether I attended RE lessons or not. Religion has nothing to do with knowledge - historically, the big religions of the world have done everything in their power to suppress knowledge. They'd rather we accept everything on blind faith.

I would have no problem with theology lessons being taught in class, where the history of various religion is laid open to scrutiny. However, if you want to indoctrinate your child into a particular faith, there are churches and mosques for that.

Just remember that it's legal unless you leave marks.

Again, it's not the fault of the religions, but instead those who follow them. Faith is a large aspect of many religions, but certainly knowledge is just as balanced. I know my beliefs encourage me to leave my mind open to learn new things, yet hold onto the core systems with the faith that they are true. It's a balance thing.

I disagree with the ages there.

Anything you teach kids at that age will stick with them. I've seen a lot of little kids helplessly being sucked into a faith at that age because they will believe what they are told. What children need to be learning at that age is acceptance, flexibility, honor, and all that good stuff. If they can learn to live as good people without the pressure of doing what God or whomever likes, and just be decent and honorable on their own (the real kind of good, not the good to avoid consequences), then you can let them decide who they follow, or what they want to learn about.

Do not indoctrinate any children. I hope to indoctrinate my children… with goodness, kindness, mercy, generosity, temperance, honour and forgiveness. Surely that counts as indoctrination?
In general, we do tend to at least try to teach kids that those values are universal and essential. Indoctrination in religion is a bad idea; doesn't work really either. Silly silly.

what i ment was, that religion when in moderation obviously at a young age, shows children the world is diffrent in a huge number of ways, religion for example, is just one of those diffrences, language, style, culture its all just diffrent to everything, and i ment no offence to anyone as well just to get that across :)

what i ment was, that religion when in moderation obviously at a young age, shows children the world is diffrent in a huge number of ways, religion for example, is just one of those diffrences, language, style, culture its all just diffrent to everything, and i ment no offence to anyone as well just to get that across :)

I don't think any was taken, at least none from me. ;)

How are you enjoying that gift basket? :D

Not quite. I was told to draw him DESPITE the offense. Maybe they knew of it, probably not. They were just ignorant. And most likely still are.

Oh. Seems odd that you would draw Mohammed, or any other historical figure really.

As for teaching religion, I'd be far more in favour of a general course in world religions than teaching just one religion, as the parents will have plenty of opportunity to give their children religion. I don't see the point in involving schools.

This is just the kind of ridiculous attitude that has made Britian like it is today! We are ruled by minority groups dictating are every word and action. Also teaching religion is NOT discrimination. How can learning be discriminate. It could be classed if you were forced to take up a religion but not learning about it! I am a christian and I agree with dragon bay 100% religion is being cut out every were and scorned upon. I am often quite angry about this attitude to all religions :headbang:
I'm talking about having to take classes that teach a specific religion here, not about simply teaching people about religion. Having to attend classes that teach one specific religion is discrimination, even if you say it is not.

I'm talking about having to take classes that teach a specific religion here, not about simply teaching people about religion. Having to attend classes that teach one specific religion is discrimination, even if you say it is not.

True. A (mandatory) class that is focused on just one religion isn't that smart a move. Especially if there are hints from the teacher/lecture/content that perhaps you best start following said religion. That in itself should be punished by law (and in most cases, it is). However, I'm all for a world religions class that optional for those who choose to take it. That said, I'm also of the belief that perhaps evolution and Darwinian history should also be made an optional class, as there will be those just as equally offended by that content as there would those offended by religion.

Is not science a form of religion. Are not labs their temples? Is not the white coat the new form of the holy robe? We look for answers, and find only more questions. Religion is a way of bridging the gap between so many questions and not enough answers.

I have often wondered what would happen if someone were able to read all religious texts. Would they then see a pattern of what true religion is? Would there not be ideals the same in all religions? Surely, by teaching about all religions, we can further understand our neighbours. And then we can work together towards a better future.

Where are you from? Some nations have a state religion, which you must learn in school.


The good old Church of England, eh?


And I mean learn in the religion, you know, the scriptures, that stuff. Not just learn about it. Were you ever in a religion classrom? I know I actually was once, and I swore to never enter that type of torture facility again.

I think that any kind of religious "education" should only occur once the mind of the person is mature enough to make that kind of decision for itself. Say, around 25 years old. Same goes for baptism, confirmation, etc.

Is not science a form of religion. Are not labs their temples? Is not the white coat the new form of the holy robe? We look for answers, and find only more questions. Religion is a way of bridging the gap between so many questions and not enough answers.

First off, welcome to NS. I'm out of cookies, however. EDIT: Oh, wait, here's some. Enjoy. *Passes the cookie jar.*

Second off, the difference between science and religion is this: Religion claims to have most of the answers. Science claims to have few.

I have often wondered what would happen if someone were able to read all religious texts. Would they then see a pattern of what true religion is? Would there not be ideals the same in all religions? Surely, by teaching about all religions, we can further understand our neighbours. And then we can work together towards a better future.

Hmm...nice idea. Unlikely to work, though in my opinion.

I agree with teaching about religions. In fact I think it's extremely important for religious tolerence. But that should be without any bias between religions or between being religious and irreligious. Facts can be given about religions/belief systems and arguments can be given for and against different beliefs. My R.E teacher manages to do it.

People need to learn about the world around them. Religion is a huge part of that. People need to learn to treat people from different religions with respect. People need to be challenged to think about opinions, their own and others.

If you want to learn about a particular religion, do that in your own time. If you want religion treated as fact, go to your place of worship (or somewhere where religion is treated as fact).

I hate the idea of "indoctrination" and I think you need religious education at school to counter anything like that which could be happening at home.

Edit: I know that many people are talking about being against a religion being taught as fact. I'm not attacking them. I agree with them. This is just my opinion in general on the subhect.

Is not science a form of religion. Are not labs their temples? Is not the white coat the new form of the holy robe? We look for answers, and find only more questions. Religion is a way of bridging the gap between so many questions and not enough answers.

I have often wondered what would happen if someone were able to read all religious texts. Would they then see a pattern of what true religion is? Would there not be ideals the same in all religions? Surely, by teaching about all religions, we can further understand our neighbours. And then we can work together towards a better future.

Religion by its nature involves blind faith. The scientific process accepts nothing on faith. The maxim of the scientist is "take nobody's word for it". The maxim of the religious is "have faith, my child." Religion is a search for "why", and "meaning". Science is a search for "how", and doesn't concern itself with "meaning".

Personally, I don't think there is a "why", or a "meaning", but I remain open to being proved wrong.

I think that any kind of religious "education" should only occur once the mind of the person is mature enough to make that kind of decision for itself. Say, around 25 years old. Same goes for baptism, confirmation, etc.
I would rather go with 16 or 18.

Is not science a form of religion. Are not labs their temples? Is not the white coat the new form of the holy robe? We look for answers, and find only more questions. Religion is a way of bridging the gap between so many questions and not enough answers.

No! Science is a philosophy. Maybe some people get the wrong end of the stick and treat scientific knowledge as infallible, but it isn't. The majority of religions are based not on philosophy or thought, but on dogma that is passed down and generally cannot be questioned. One or two religions are similar to science, such as Deism and Buddhism.

I have often wondered what would happen if someone were able to read all religious texts. Would they then see a pattern of what true religion is? Would there not be ideals the same in all religions? Surely, by teaching about all religions, we can further understand our neighbours. And then we can work together towards a better future.

I agree here though, understanding other people is a good thing. And I'd like it a lot better if people got over their local religions and realised that the world is full of different religions and the idea that yours is right and theirs is wrong is pretty ridiculous.

I would rather go with 16 or 18.

You would be surprised. There's a reason car insurance companies reduce their premiums, at least in this country, once you hit 25 years old.

You would be surprised. There's a reason car insurance companies reduce their premiums, at least in this country, once you hit 25 years old. Why, because lots of 26-year olds die driving? Wait…

The problem with religion is that vast numbers of people use it as the philosophical equivalent of stabilisers on a bike; they are afraid (very understandably!) of taking full responsibility for themselves in the universe and need the emotional support of a God. This obviously makes them very open to exploitation, which is where the half the evil in religion comes from; its power to in the wrong hands control millions of people's behaviour. The other half measure of evil comes when people are so afraid of facing the universe without religion that they go to extreme lengths to defend their views from countering arguments, often stepping outside the confines of reason/science/common sense, and commiting acts they would otherwise condemn like the rest of us.

Religion is an essential part of all cultures throughout time. The philosophical need to explain the unexplained and the resulting ideas are fundamental to the essence of society. Thus stated, I would say that religion classes are completely necessary in schools. Now some people here have said that these classes are propoganda only. I would say to them in some cases this is true. However, simply because a minority, which I would say these instances are, of the classes are propoganda based does not mean that we should refuse them entirely. Others have claimed that religion has no place in a secular institution. I would say that is completely untrue, religion is a form of ethics, of laws and justice, and of intuitive philosophy. These things are completely needed in a public instituition.
Thus I reiterate myself, religion classes are a very intregral part of any education system and should be encouraged at public schools.
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

I agree. The search for answers is the noblest of causes and deserves the most prominent place in any society. However, religion is based on an obsolete concept that is still adhered to for reasons of insecurity. In science, such a concept would be dropped at the earliest stage. So why the hell do so many still believe this falsehood?

Fine, if you want religion to be taught, then include all major religions and non-religions (not just your own!)... only that way will you truly "study the beliefs of others". But it can get pretty nasty, especially after class... maybe in college or university or grade 12... but no earlier.

THAts RIGHT! Personally, I believe that religion is no longer needed. In some places students are REQIURED to take religion, and that must be stopped, as it is discrimination.

No offence but thats a rather ignorent position to take. Being taught comparitve religious content is something that should be encouraged. As a Christian myself I dont think its fair for the state to encourage any one single religion as to be taught as true. However I do think the content level needs to be advanced, as at present it is at such a basic level that those who arnt already religious in some way or other often think they know all there is to know about any one religion from the basic study of the content they learn. Since the study level is often very basic they assume that religion must be rubbish if all they have learnt is all there is too it. Comparitive religion is fair, but it needs to be more advanced.

If religon would ever be taught in public schools it should be in a class that just basically goes over all main stream religons and it should be an elective class, that way if yall dont like somthing you dont have to take it.
I totally agree *hands bottle of vodka*

I can answer my own question. Because they are scared of living life without the myth of an omnipotent, omniscent, benevolent being to take care of them. And that is fine; life is hard, anyone who has not felt fear is not human. But to give up responsiblity for your fate is to lose control of your fate, and that I can and will never accept.

I'm taught about religion in my public school. Except, no religion is given a bias towards or against, in fact, the only thing taught about it is it's history and stories... All religions are learned about. And I've yet to find a religion worth adopting.

I agree. The search for answers is the noblest of causes and deserves the most prominent place in any society. However, religion is based on an obsolete concept that is still adhered to for reasons of insecurity. In science, such a concept would be dropped at the earliest stage. So why the hell do so many still believe this falsehood?

You quite obviously have'nt examined theology in any serious depth. Just because you cannot prove something to be true in a scientific fashion, does not mean it does not exist. You cannot prove the existance of hope, despair, love, grief or any number of other emotional and psycological states in a scientific fashion but that does nothing to mean they do not exist. Furthermore, I know there is a great deal of historical backing to at the least Chrsitianity. As to other religions I am not an expert, but theres enough evidence as to not dismiss any as "falsehood"

I can answer my own question. Because they are scared of living life without the myth of an omnipotent, omniscent, benevolent being to take care of them. And that is fine; life is hard, anyone who has not felt fear is not human. But to give up responsiblity for your fate is to lose control of your fate, and that I can and will never accept. The scary thing is that I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago. :eek:

But decreasing

I dont know where you got that from but religions all around the globe are reporting increases in numbers. Islam and Chrisitanity have (over the last 5-7 years) been constantly swaping possition for worlds fastest growing religion at rates of 5/6% roughly. Other religions may not be showing the same growth rate but they are growing. The belief that religious beliefs are in decline generaly comes from schools of thought with outdated concepts of what a religion is and measuring the members of that faith (Church/Mosque attendence had been widely held now as a poor method of religious membeship tallying)

I can answer my own question. Because they are scared of living life without the myth of an omnipotent, omniscent, benevolent being to take care of them. And that is fine; life is hard, anyone who has not felt fear is not human. But to give up responsiblity for your fate is to lose control of your fate, and that I can and will never accept.

Like touching nerves, do ya? ;)

The scary thing is that I would have agreed with you a couple of years ago. :eek:



Explain

Like touching nerves, do ya? ;)
The truth is painful for some

But what if some people don't want to deal with science? Or math? Shouldn't we take them out of everything too? No.School is there to prepare people for the real world, and religion is a big part of the real world whether we like it or not. I think religion should be in schools, even if only to give kids an educated view on it and let them make their decision, instead of basing it off the fact that the media hates religion. Just my two cents. ;D

It funny how when we take religion and punishment out of school then we have increased school violence, drug usage and so forth...food for thought

It funny how when we take religion and punishment out of school then we have increased school violence, drug usage and so forth...food for thought

Well, the same trends go for getting rid of racial segregation and not tolerating husbands beating their wives, maybe we should reverse those laws too? You can't prove causation just because two things happened at the same time.

Ok... I see a lot of people saying teaching religion is descrimination... what about teaching about religion? I couldn't see anything wrong with that...

Ok... I see a lot of people saying teaching religion is descrimination... what about teaching about religion? I couldn't see anything wrong with that...

Thats what I was advocated a few posts ago. It must be very sensable as I got completely ignored

Thats what I was advocated a few posts ago. It must be very sensable as I got completely ignored Let us join our voices in a choir of reasonableness.

Well, the same trends go for getting rid of racial segregation and not tolerating husbands beating their wives, maybe we should reverse those laws too? You can't prove causation just because two things happened at the same time.
Yep. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Incidentally, violent crime has actually gone down in schools. It just gets reported more than it did 50 years ago.

However, disrespect for teachers has increased over the last 50 years. But that has nothing to do with religion being taught or not being taught.

Thanks for the cookie. It's gone a bit stale where I left it overnight. Any clues on how to un-stale it?

Being taught about religion is totally different from being indoctrinated. I attended a catholic school, where I was in the minority being a Church of England lad. Aside from the regular assemblies where prayers were said and hymns sung, the actual religious studies part of it was quite interesting. I found a project the other day whilst rooting through my junk on Islam. We studied many other religions, but our core subject was Mark's gospel. And now I have a healthy disrespect for all organised religion. I prefer to think of religion in two parts. Faith and knowledge. You can know many religions, but your faith is your very own personal belief.

But decreasing. Also, religion is taken out of shools because teaching religion in public schools is discrimanation!


???????

discrimination is choosing one person above another because of race, religion etc!

Let us join our voices in a choir of reasonableness.

I agree.

Should we make it three tenors?

Because usually religion is brainwashed into people.

Because usually religion is brainwashed into people.

And language is not?

"Miss, why must "is" be used for "he", "she", "it", but "am" is used for "I" and "are" is used for "you" and "they"?

"Shut up and learn your grammar."

And maths?

"Sir, why is One plus One always equal to Two?"

"Because it is."

Define brainwash.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.
In my (public) schools, we learned about religion plenty. We learned about the Greek Gods, the Roman Gods, the Vikings, the Christians, the Jews, the Hindus, and a whole mass of others. We studied religious writings in literature classes, and we studied the impact of religion in Human Cultures, Social Studies, and World History. If your schools are trying to pretend religion doesn't exist then you should go to new schools.

Students absolutely need to be educated about religion and superstition, just like they need to be educated about drugs, alcohol, unsafe sex, and a host of other potentially dangerous activities. Pretending that these dangers don't exist will not help protect young people, it will only leave them more ignorant and vulnerable.

And language is not?

"Miss, why must "is" be used for "he", "she", "it", but "am" is used for "I" and "are" is used for "you" and "they"?

"Shut up and learn your grammar."

And maths?

"Sir, why is One plus One always equal to Two?"

"Because it is."

Define brainwash.
Grammar and maths are used in real life for eveyone. Religion is not

Brainwashing because kids are very receptible in what you teach them and they don't have a choice. That's why brainwash

And language is not?

"Miss, why must "is" be used for "he", "she", "it", but "am" is used for "I" and "are" is used for "you" and "they"?

"Shut up and learn your grammar."

And maths?

"Sir, why is One plus One always equal to Two?"

"Because it is."

Define brainwash.
Teaching definitions of objective objects (such as teaching that a certain wavelength of reflected light is called "RED" in the English language) is not brainwashing. Teaching subjective superstitions as though they were objective fact is quite different.

We can teach children that certain people believe there is a certain definition of God, and those people believe that their "God" does certain things. Indeed, every public school I know of does exactly that. However, we have no reason to single out a particular God-belief, superstition, or non-superstitious philosophy in which to indoctrinate children. Public education is not concerned with such indoctrination, so there's no reason to waste time on it.

This is just the kind of ridiculous attitude that has made Britian like it is today! We are ruled by minority groups dictating are every word and action. Also teaching religion is NOT discrimination. How can learning be discriminate. It could be classed if you were forced to take up a religion but not learning about it! I am a christian and I agree with dragon bay 100% religion is being cut out every were and scorned upon. I am often quite angry about this attitude to all religions :headbang:
Only 15% of people in the UK go to church. I don't think that truly merit the levels of Christian instruction in our schools. (Relative to other religions.)

Grammar and maths are used in real life for eveyone. Religion is not

Brainwashing because kids are very receptible in what you teach them and they don't have a choice. That's why brainwash

Not true. All of us worship something. Some of us worship a deity. Others worship money, drugs, power, technology, themselves etc.

So teaching maths and language, despite their "everyday use", is called brainwashing?

Teaching definitions of objective objects (such as teaching that a certain wavelength of reflected light is called "RED" in the English language) is not brainwashing. Teaching subjective superstitions as though they were objective fact is quite different .
So should history, economics, politics, sociology, anthropology, architecture, visual art, music, drama etc... all be brought out? These are all "subjective" subjects.

We can teach children that certain people believe there is a certain definition of God, and those people believe that their "God" does certain things. Indeed, every public school I know of does exactly that. However, we have no reason to single out a particular God-belief, superstition, or non-superstitious philosophy in which to indoctrinate children. Public education is not concerned with such indoctrination, so there's no reason to waste time on it.

Oh well, that's not what I generally see. "NO RELIGION, WHATSOEVER" is taught at school.

You know what I find particularly peeving? Some "civil rights" groups are trying to allow muslims to pray in school. Not Hindus. Not Jews. Not even the Christians, whose numbers dominate the landscape of the Americas and Europe, not to mention Australia. I guess it's because Allah is just so demanding while God is a bit more lenient. I guess Allah is on a smiting and damning spree while God has a few simple requirements which involve only simple worship and true repentment.

You know what I find particularly peeving? Some "civil rights" groups are trying to allow muslims to pray in school. Not Hindus. Not Jews. Not even the Christians, whose numbers dominate the landscape of the Americas and Europe, not to mention Australia. I guess it's because Allah is just so demanding while God is a bit more lenient. I guess Allah is on a smiting and damning spree while God has a few simple requirements which involve only simple worship and true repentment.

I really doubt this. I mean as you say, "Allah is more demanding"... If only Muslims want to pray in school, as they are meant to pray five times a day, then why would there be groups demanding that particular right for others? However, I really doubt that the civil rights groups said anything about withholding it from any other group. Everyone should have the right to religious expression, within reason. Sacrificing goats in the classroom might be abit disruptive...

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

If it is 80% of the population's source of information, that is a said statement indeed. Since religion is constituted mostly of hearsay, faith, dogma, and control, I don't see why it is considered a credible souce of information by anyone.

I have no problem with religion being taught from an historical perspective, provided that all religions are given equal time and it isn't just Christianity-fest.

Not true. All of us worship something...

I'm disappointed, Dragons Bay. I've seen this one used so many times, it's getting quite tired... but usually it is the intractible zealots who say things like this.

You know it's dangerous to use sweeping generalisations, right?

Don't you realise you trivialise God, with a statement like this? Saying that your god is nothing more than a necessary evil to you, and a hinderance?

If you honestly believe there is a comparison between 'money' and God, that is.

So - let's see your evidence? You have made a claim that EVERYONE worships something... let's see your source material?

You know what I find particularly peeving? Some "civil rights" groups are trying to allow muslims to pray in school. Not Hindus. Not Jews. Not even the Christians, whose numbers dominate the landscape of the Americas and Europe, not to mention Australia. I guess it's because Allah is just so demanding while God is a bit more lenient. I guess Allah is on a smiting and damning spree while God has a few simple requirements which involve only simple worship and true repentment.

Muslims should be allowed to pray in school, just as Christians are, and all other religions.

What is NOT allowed is the endorsement of ONE religion - i.e. a TEACHER leading the prayer.

I remember doing exams, and watching dozens of faces turn temporarily skywards, as they prayed for a good result. Personal prayer is not an issue.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

At school you SHOULD learn about religion. After all, it has been instrumental in SO many epochs of human existence.

HOWEVER, there is no justification for teaching any ONE religion any more than any other - since they all have much the same evidence.

ALL religions (as many as CAN be covered) should be examined in roughly equivalent depth.

And, if you want to learn about one SPECIFIC religion in more depth... well, isn't that what Churches are for?

At school you SHOULD learn about religion. After all, it has been instrumental in SO many epochs of human existence.

HOWEVER, there is no justification for teaching any ONE religion any more than any other - since they all have much the same evidence.

ALL religions (as many as CAN be covered) should be examined in roughly equivalent depth.

And, if you want to learn about one SPECIFIC religion in more depth... well, isn't that what Churches are for?

I agree. School is for learning a little about everything. If you need a religious education go to sunday school.

I can remember thinking in high school, "Okay, so we understand Christianity, the greek and roman gods, some of the viking stuff...nearly nothing about Buddhism save that it exists, no Taoism, no Zen, no Hinduism, no Chrishnaism, and very little about other cults. Hmm...I guess the christians to have too much control."

Muslims should be allowed to pray in school, just as Christians are, and all other religions.

What is NOT allowed is the endorsement of ONE religion - i.e. a TEACHER leading the prayer.

I remember doing exams, and watching dozens of faces turn temporarily skywards, as they prayed for a good result. Personal prayer is not an issue. Prayer (well fervent mumbling really) must work… how else did I get A in sciences? :p

Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist, I say let them pray! If they're atheist, I say let them abstain from praying! The very people who preach "tolerance" will not tolerate the prayers of others?

Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist, I say let them pray! If they're atheist, I say let them abstain from praying! The very people who preach "tolerance" will not tolerate the prayers of others?

I've seen no evidence that anyone is against this. Religious freedom applies to everyone. As far as I can tell someone is assuming intolerance just because someone argued for Muslim rights without demanding rights for every single other religion at the same time...

You quite obviously have'nt examined theology in any serious depth. Just because you cannot prove something to be true in a scientific fashion, does not mean it does not exist. You cannot prove the existance of hope, despair, love, grief or any number of other emotional and psycological states in a scientific fashion but that does nothing to mean they do not exist. Furthermore, I know there is a great deal of historical backing to at the least Chrsitianity. As to other religions I am not an expert, but theres enough evidence as to not dismiss any as "falsehood"

There is no historical backing for the supernatural. By its very nature it can't be proven.

You can show me the ruins of Jericho, but that doesn't prove the walls were torn down with a tooting horn.

You can point me at many passages describing the process of crucifixion and I'd even go so far as to say it's very possible the real Jesus was crucified, but that doesn't prove that he was the son of the Christian god or that he arose from the dead.

You have absolutely no objective proof whatsoever that Jesus was what he said he was or that the Christian god exists.

Because people like bush try to make their religion part of everyone's life, no matter what other people think.

Perhaps if school prayer wasn't forced out of the public schools (no-one was forced to pray, except perhaps in Catholic schools), and "One nation under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a relatively harmless Ten Commandment display taken down in Texas, then just maybe, it wouldn't be such an issue anymore. That has been forced on us over the recent past. Suddenly it's not ok to be Christian anymore, for some reason. We are the pariahs here.

And where pray tell is prayer in schools allowed, so that I might move there. Certainly isn't in Indiana.

Perhaps if school prayer wasn't forced out of the public schools (no-one was forced to pray, except perhaps in Catholic schools), and "One nation under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a relatively harmless Ten Commandment display taken down in Texas, then just maybe, it wouldn't be such an issue anymore. That has been forced on us over the recent past. Suddenly it's not ok to be Christian anymore, for some reason. We are the pariahs here.

Removing Christian references from government institutions does not imply in any way that being a Christian is not OK. Religion is a personal matter and no-one is attempting to stop private belief. The seperation of state protects religious freedom, while imposing one religion on everyone erodes it.

I agree. School is for learning a little about everything. If you need a religious education go to sunday school.

I can remember thinking in high school, "Okay, so we understand Christianity, the greek and roman gods, some of the viking stuff...nearly nothing about Buddhism save that it exists, no Taoism, no Zen, no Hinduism, no Chrishnaism, and very little about other cults. Hmm...I guess the christians to have too much control."

Exactly - if you come away from a study of religion, with a lack of understanding of even the most BASIC principles of some of the world's belief systems, but the names of 3000 years worth of Jewish prophets... the balance is off somewhere.

The argument cannot really be used that religion is being taught to understand other cultures, if all you know is the trivia from one faith, and the NAME of most of the other world religions.

Perhaps if school prayer wasn't forced out of the public schools (no-one was forced to pray, except perhaps in Catholic schools), and "One nation under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a relatively harmless Ten Commandment display taken down in Texas, then just maybe, it wouldn't be such an issue anymore. That has been forced on us over the recent past. Suddenly it's not ok to be Christian anymore, for some reason. We are the pariahs here.

I suppose this doesn't affect me as much, being English, and subject to the official state religion otherwise known as the Church Of Evil^X^X^X^XEngland, but as I recall, "Under God" was never actually in the Pledge of Allegiance until some bloody-minded prat whipped up a crowd of hysteria and added it. And of course anyone not in support (or straight, white and male) was a pinko commie.

Prayer (well fervent mumbling really) must work… how else did I get A in sciences? :p

Revision?

Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist, I say let them pray! If they're atheist, I say let them abstain from praying! The very people who preach "tolerance" will not tolerate the prayers of others?

Don't even see the irony, do you?

Be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist, I say let them pray! If they're atheist, I say let them abstain from praying! The very people who preach "tolerance" will not tolerate the prayers of others?

It's hard to be tolerant through the glances and comments made by those praying when you aren't doing it.

Why is that those who preach "turning the other cheek" are those who turn the evil eye upon those who don't agree with their practices?

And furthermore, Buddhists don't pray. They mediate, which is not allowed in school.

Perhaps if school prayer wasn't forced out of the public schools (no-one was forced to pray, except perhaps in Catholic schools), and "One nation under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a relatively harmless Ten Commandment display taken down in Texas, then just maybe, it wouldn't be such an issue anymore. That has been forced on us over the recent past. Suddenly it's not ok to be Christian anymore, for some reason. We are the pariahs here.

As you should be. That is what Jesus taught.

It's hard to be tolerant through the glances and comments made by those praying when you aren't doing it.

Why is that those who preach "turning the other cheek" are those who turn the evil eye upon those who don't agree with their practices?

And furthermore, Buddhists don't pray. They mediate, which is not allowed in school.



Ok, if you do not have the personal fortitude to endure a few looks of disdain and comments for your beliefs, then that's your problem. Early Christians were burned alive for theirs. As long as you're not tied to a flaming stake, I'm pretty sure you can learn to deal with it. I know I'm not exactly the most popular person for holding more strict beliefs towards scripture in classes where the students have a certain bias against Orthodox/Catholic/Fundamental Christianity (and this is Alabama of all places!), but do I demand that they stop voicing their opinions and beliefs so I feel "accepted?" Of course not:

Matthew 5:10-11 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.



And this isn't even slightly comparable to what others had/have to endure!

Revision? *snigger* plus there is the question of physics…

I suppose this doesn't affect me as much, being English, and subject to the official state religion otherwise known as the Church Of Evil^X^X^X^XEngland, but as I recall, "Under God" was never actually in the Pledge of Allegiance until some bloody-minded prat whipped up a crowd of hysteria and added it. And of course anyone not in support (or straight, white and male) was a pinko commie.
Indeed. Hell, my Christian friends are actually offended by the "under God" in the Pledge, because it is only there due to some political maneuvering...my Christian friends hate knowing that their religious beliefs were used as a tool in the Cold War, and the Pledge is a reminder of how leaders will use religion to manipulate things for their own ends.

The REAL Pledge existed for decades without "Under God," just as American money was around for almost 100 years before "Under God" was added during the Civil War to help encourage Union citizens to believe that God was on their side during that war. Indeed, every time "Under God" has been forced into secular American culture it has been for purely political reasons, and any person who is a sincere believer would be insulted and offended by it.

Of course, plenty of people don't care WHY their beliefs get forced on others, just so long as everybody is obliged to agree with them...but that's not "religion," that's just selfishness and bossiness, and people of honest faith shouldn't be lumped in with that kind of ignorance.

Ok, if you do not have the personal fortitude to endure a few looks of disdain and comments for your beliefs, then that's your problem. Early Christians were burned alive for theirs. As long as you're not tied to a flaming stake, I'm pretty sure you can learn to deal with it.

Ok, if you do not have the personal fortitude to endure the excision of religion from schools, the pledge of Allegiance and in front of secular courthouses then that's your problem. Non-Christians have been burned alive for theirs. As long as you're not tied to a flaming stake, I'm pretty sure you can learn to deal with it.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Religion is an important source of information for all people, whether they
want to see it that way or not.

What you believe is how you see the world, and religion is nothing more than
your belief system, whatever that may be. But we all DO have a belief
system on which to hang our observations, and that IS your religion.

If people don't wish to discuss what they believe, then they don't want
others looking at their beliefs, which immediately tells me they have little to
no confidence in what they THINK they believe.

I'd be more than happy to discuss pretty much anything with you, or anyone
else.

I agree with you. It's just silly and un-fun to NOT be able to discuss religion
with people. :)


-The REAL Iakeo

Ok, if you do not have the personal fortitude to endure the excision of religion from schools, the pledge of Allegiance and in front of secular courthouses then that's your problem. Non-Christians have been burned alive for theirs. As long as you're not tied to a flaming stake, I'm pretty sure you can learn to deal with it.

I know you are,.. but what am I..!?

Nyeah nyeah na nyeah nyeah.....! <tongue-sticking-out-smiley>

Uh,.. what were we talking about again..?


-The REAL Iakeo

Ok, if you do not have the personal fortitude to endure the excision of religion from schools, the pledge of Allegiance and in front of secular courthouses then that's your problem. Non-Christians have been burned alive for theirs. As long as you're not tied to a flaming stake, I'm pretty sure you can learn to deal with it.

It's your right to not participate in the pledge, prayer, etc. Quit whining when those who choose to do it do so. You don't have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for refusing to pray. Nor do we have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for praying. If we banned anything that could potentially offend anyone, we would all be living by ourselves in small shacks in the middle of nowhere.

Religion is the primary sorce of ignorance for most of the world. It should be scorned and eradicated.

I agree, we get some religion taught over here in England but not enough, it should have more bearing on school curiculums. Even if someone isn't religious it wouldn't hurt them to learn it; if only to study the beliefs of others.


in our school we have an hour and twenty minutes of religious studies every week; we learn about loads of different religions including christianity, islam, and buddhism. what you believe is of no importance- we just get to learn about other religious cultures. oh yeah, i go to a private school so i guess that doesnt count. but its surprising how little importance is placed on what you believe when the school used to be run by nuns and is very christian-ethos!

It's your right to not participate in the pledge, prayer, etc. Quit whining when those who choose to do it do so. You don't have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for refusing to pray. Nor do we have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for praying. If we banned anything that could potentially offend anyone, we would all be living by ourselves in small shacks in the middle of nowhere.

Setting aside class time for manditory prayer, reading "In God we trust" or uttering "Under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.

Ok, if you do not have the personal fortitude to endure a few looks of disdain and comments for your beliefs, then that's your problem. Early Christians were burned alive for theirs. As long as you're not tied to a flaming stake, I'm pretty sure you can learn to deal with it. I know I'm not exactly the most popular person for holding more strict beliefs towards scripture in classes where the students have a certain bias against Orthodox/Catholic/Fundamental Christianity (and this is Alabama of all places!), but do I demand that they stop voicing their opinions and beliefs so I feel "accepted?" Of course not:

Matthew 5:10-11 10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.



And this isn't even slightly comparable to what others had/have to endure!


But wasn't your initial point that atheists are not tolerant? Dish it out but can't take it?

I am very tolerant of your silly little worship fest. If I wasn't I'd be protesting churchs every Sunday trying to help the blindly faithful see that they are wasting time and should be mowing their lawns or grocery shopping instead of hoping on miracles.

But I don't.

It's your right to not participate in the pledge, prayer, etc. Quit whining when those who choose to do it do so.
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret..." (Matthew 6: 5-6)

That's a quote from this guy who got nailed to a plus sign a couple thousand years ago. I think his name was "Jesus."

So remind me again why "real Christians" support public prayer...?

But wasn't your initial point that atheists are not tolerant? Dish it out but can't take it?

I am very tolerant of your silly little worship fest. If I wasn't I'd be protesting churchs every Sunday trying to help the blindly faithful see that they are wasting time and should be mowing their lawns or grocery shopping instead of hoping on miracles.

But I don't.


My point was in response to another person's, which implied that unsponsored prayer in school should be banned because those who choose not to participate may not be liked. If you really wish to delude yourself into thinking that there is no God and that all Christians are blind sheep following the shepard of lies, then it's your choice. But don't expect to be popular for it, because we don't expect to be popular for our beliefs.

My point was in response to another person's, which implied that unsponsored prayer in school should be banned because those who choose not to participate may not be liked. If you really wish to delude yourself into thinking that there is no God and that all Christians are blind sheep following the shepard of lies, then it's your choice. But don't expect to be popular for it, because we don't expect to be popular for our beliefs. Neo, please don't be so defensive. I personally don't think it should be banned… I didn't mind it much when I was a strong agnostic God-hater (really). However, things should not be overdone and we must not divide people.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret..." (Matthew 6: 5-6)

That's a quote from this guy who got nailed to a plus sign a couple thousand years ago. I think his name was "Jesus."

So remind me again why "real Christians" support public prayer...?


This isn't about public prayer, this is about private prayer in public places. So remind me again why you're trying to spin my words to make me say what you want me to say?

Neo, please don't be so defensive. I personally don't think it should be banned… I didn't mind it much when I was a strong agnostic God-hater (really). However, things should not be overdone and we must not divide people.



Sorry, I tend to get overly defensive when challenged at times....

This isn't about public prayer, this is about private prayer in public places. So remind me again why you're trying to spin my words to make me say what you want me to say?
Seems to me that passage specifically refers to individual, "private" prayer that is performed in public places. You're supposed to have your private prayer IN PRIVATE according to Jesus. Hell, just doing it your private home isn't enough! He wants you to go into a closet and pray all by your lonesome! Why don't you want to follow the word of Jesus?

Sorry, I tend to get overly defensive when challenged at times.... Just take breaths and try to be calm and write in a way that will make the other person think, and remember that we all love you. Well, I do. :D

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Because religion is not fact. It's based on faith, so there really is no real tangible knowledge to be learned from it. Either you have faith or you don't. If you want it to be taught, it's not like there isn't a church of your choosing in every neighbourhood. You can also go to a Catholic or religious school. It just should be kept out of a national discussion when you live in a secular society as we do in the west. Religion has no place in government or in the pursuit of factual knowledge. It's simply a belief that may or may not be true. Like a hobby if you will. Until you move to a theocracy, that is the way it should remain.

Because religion is not fact. It's based on faith, so there really is no real tangible knowledge to be learned from it. Either you have faith or you don't. If you want it to be taught, it's not like there isn't a church of your choosing in every neighbourhood. You can also go to a Catholic or religious school. It just should be kept out of a national discussion when you live in a secular society as we do in the west. Religion has no place in government or in the pursuit of factual knowledge. It's simply a belief that may or may not be true. Like a hobby if you will. Until you move to a theocracy, that is the way it should remain. Again… teaching ABOUT religion, not OF religion. Remember this fellow does live in Hong Kong, which is very repressive about religion.

It's your right to not participate in the pledge, prayer, etc. Quit whining when those who choose to do it do so. You don't have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for refusing to pray. Nor do we have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for praying. If we banned anything that could potentially offend anyone, we would all be living by ourselves in small shacks in the middle of nowhere.

It's your right to NOT be taught a religion at school. Quit whining when those of us who choose not to, do so. You don't have the right to be 'liked' or thought of in 'positive' ways for not being indoctrinated...

etc. etc.

I think you missed the point of the previous post. You feel ENTIRELY justified in your persepective, and your dismissal of the other perspective... but (one assumes) you are only as human, flawed and fallible as the rest of us.

Again… teaching ABOUT religion, not OF religion. Remember this fellow does live in Hong Kong, which is very repressive about religion.

Then he's luckier than we are. :D

Because people like bush try to make their religion part of everyone's life, no matter what other people think.
that's cause everyone thinks their is right, but none of them are. there is one set of correct laws and everything, and they aren't even religion. the bad thing is, we can't prove any of these laws(cause senses have to go through the brain and many people know how the brain can be tricked and still the things seem lik they're real.), but we can estimate them.

Then he's luckier than we are. :D Bring forth the crazed preachers, the hate preachers, the fascist preachers, I say. The worst that free thought and debate can do is to tire you.

Bring forth the crazed preachers, the hate preachers, the fascist preachers, I say. The worst that free thought and debate can do is to tire you.

That or give you a really bad headache.

Bring forth the crazed preachers, the hate preachers, the fascist preachers, I say. The worst that free thought and debate can do is to tire you.

Hey, let them sing the roof off of their churches.. I don't care.. but stop ringing my door-bell at 8 AM on week-ends and keep your dogma out of my life and country and we'll all get along just fine. ;)

Hey, let them sing the roof off of their churches.. I don't care.. but stop ringing my door-bell at 8 AM on week-ends and keep your dogma out of my life and country and we'll all get along just fine. ;) Don't blame me, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, although I did wander around the streets wearing a suit today. :)

My point was in response to another person's, which implied that unsponsored prayer in school should be banned because those who choose not to participate may not be liked. If you really wish to delude yourself into thinking that there is no God and that all Christians are blind sheep following the shepard of lies, then it's your choice. But don't expect to be popular for it, because we don't expect to be popular for our beliefs.

You don't expect to be popular for your beliefs? Then why proselytize and try to convert people? I have never had mailings or knocks on my door from atheists trying to convince me. Christians however seem to have an unlimited budget for trying to get people to be "just like us".

I never expected to be popular for my beliefs, or lack thereof. At the same time, I don't want part of my school day (well, not mine as I am done with school, but my children and the children of others) wasted while you practice your religion. If you want to pray, fine, do it at the back of the class and don't disturb other learners.

When I was in school, there was a young muslim boy that needed to pray at certain times, as dictated by his religion. He was told at the beginning of the year where he could to this and that he needed to be quiet so as not to disturb the rest of us who more concerned with learning things now and not hoping for a mythical afterlife. I had no problem with this.

It is when Christians (who are the predominate pushers of this) want to take class room time away from everyone to profess their faith.

Seems to me that passage specifically refers to individual, "private" prayer that is performed in public places. You're supposed to have your private prayer IN PRIVATE according to Jesus. Hell, just doing it your private home isn't enough! He wants you to go into a closet and pray all by your lonesome! Why don't you want to follow the word of Jesus?



Because sometimes it's not entirely possible to do so? Also, I'm going to assume that you don't know what the purpose of the statement was when taken in context: Don't pray just for attention and to be thought well of. It was a condemnation of hypocrisy, not of public prayer.

Don't blame me, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, although I did wander around the streets wearing a suit today. :)

Hehe, it's not just the Jehovah's Witness anymore, where I live we have the darn Mormons doing it too. Offering free bible's too. I usually accept the free bible and then slam the door. It makes for good kindling for the fireplace.. :D

There are free religion classes at most churchs. Sunday school, bible class, etc. Most churchs are on bus or subway routes. Why do people think the government must pay for classes that are provided free in every place there is a church?

My point was in response to another person's, which implied that unsponsored prayer in school should be banned because those who choose not to participate may not be liked. If you really wish to delude yourself into thinking that there is no God and that all Christians are blind sheep following the shepard of lies, then it's your choice. But don't expect to be popular for it, because we don't expect to be popular for our beliefs.

If you really wish to delude yourself into thinking that there IS a god, and that all non-Christians are blind sheep following shepards of lies, then it's your choice. But, don't expect to be ACCEPTED for it...

etc.

You are always going to run into trouble when you make inflammatory response based on faith, that claim belief is somehow equal to fact.

This isn't about public prayer, this is about private prayer in public places. So remind me again why you're trying to spin my words to make me say what you want me to say?

No, it isn't. Private prayer is allowed and allowable. It is only when it is ENDORSED... i.e. when a teacher leads a prayer in a classroom, that it becomes a problem.

If Christians want closets to go pray in, so as to better mirror Jesus' teachings, they should ask for them.

You don't expect to be popular for your beliefs? Then why proselytize and try to convert people? I have never had mailings or knocks on my door from atheists trying to convince me. Christians however seem to have an unlimited budget for trying to get people to be "just like us".

I never expected to be popular for my beliefs, or lack thereof. At the same time, I don't want part of my school day (well, not mine as I am done with school, but my children and the children of others) wasted while you practice your religion. If you want to pray, fine, do it at the back of the class and don't disturb other learners.

When I was in school, there was a young muslim boy that needed to pray at certain times, as dictated by his religion. He was told at the beginning of the year where he could to this and that he needed to be quiet so as not to disturb the rest of us who more concerned with learning things now and not hoping for a mythical afterlife. I had no problem with this.

It is when Christians (who are the predominate pushers of this) want to take class room time away from everyone to profess their faith.


1. You're spinning the issue, I was stating that you should not complain when others pray or when they disapprove of your refusal to pray. You're trying to change this into an issue of proselytizing and, quite frankly, I'm not going to veer off-topic.

2. Who said that I supported groups of people bursting into loud prayer for the purpose of distracting the class? You're taking the worst example of something and applying it to the whole.

3. The teacher should be fired for saying the boy's hope in an afterlife was mythical.

No, it isn't. Private prayer is allowed and allowable. It is only when it is ENDORSED... i.e. when a teacher leads a prayer in a classroom, that it becomes a problem.

If Christians want closets to go pray in, so as to better mirror Jesus' teachings, they should ask for them.


I never said that teachers should lead classes in prayer, but I did say that students should be allowed to pray themselves.

No, it isn't. Private prayer is allowed and allowable. It is only when it is ENDORSED... i.e. when a teacher leads a prayer in a classroom, that it becomes a problem.

If Christians want closets to go pray in, so as to better mirror Jesus' teachings, they should ask for them.

Hey now! You can't oppress those that wish to force their Religious Morality on you! What are you a barbarian? :p

1. You're spinning the issue, I was stating that you should not complain when others pray or when they disapprove of your refusal to pray. You're trying to change this into an issue of proselytizing and, quite frankly, I'm not going to veer off-topic.

2. Who said that I supported groups of people bursting into loud prayer for the purpose of distracting the class? You're taking the worst example of something and applying it to the whole.

3. The teacher should be fired for saying the boy's hope in an afterlife was mythical.

1) Not really spinning. These are all things involved with the issue at hand. Saying I am spinning is just avoiding what I am saying.

2) I didn't say that you support loud prayer, however, most proponents of the ideal of prayer in the classroom want it done during class time and many religions need to be speaking out loud to pray.

3) The teacher never said that. I did.

You don't expect to be popular for your beliefs? Then why proselytize and try to convert people? I have never had mailings or knocks on my door from atheists trying to convince me. Christians however seem to have an unlimited budget for trying to get people to be "just like us".

Why try to convert people? That's common sense. Christians try to convert others because according to Christian belief, if you don't accept Jesus as your savior than you're going to burn in hell for eternity. Think of all the people that don't even believe in a God; if the Bible was fact, all those people are going to burn in the fiery depths of hell FOREVER. They try to convert people because they fear for the futures of others; and while it may seem misguided, pushy, and perhaps overwhelmingly irritating for some of us, they're really just trying to help you from experiencing the horrible afterlife that they believe in. It's not about popularity or getting you to be "just like them". It's about saving souls.

I've met some loud-mouthed obnoxious Christians in my time spouting off about me being a sinner and getting left behind when Jesus returns to gather his children...I've heard all sorts of judgement day malarkey. But no matter how hard they shove it down my throat, I always keep in mind that they've got good intentions; I guess I'm a little more patient when it comes to the religious. Atheists don't knock on doors and try to convert people because they've got no reason too; souls aren't on the cusp of being lost for eternity.

I never expected to be popular for my beliefs, or lack thereof. At the same time, I don't want part of my school day (well, not mine as I am done with school, but my children and the children of others) wasted while you practice your religion. If you want to pray, fine, do it at the back of the class and don't disturb other learners.

I haven't seen anyone here arguing that prayer should be mandatory in school classrooms...in fact, with the exception of a few looney tunes in the deep deep south, I don't think there's a person out there trying to get mandatory prayer in school. Are there people trying to pull strings and move Christianity into the classroom? Sure, but in an educational capacity. Personally I think all schools in America should offer a World Religion class which should be mandatory. We can learn a lot from religion.

When I was in school, there was a young muslim boy that needed to pray at certain times, as dictated by his religion. He was told at the beginning of the year where he could to this and that he needed to be quiet so as not to disturb the rest of us who more concerned with learning things now and not hoping for a mythical afterlife. I had no problem with this.

It is when Christians (who are the predominate pushers of this) want to take class room time away from everyone to profess their faith.

You know, the entire time I've been writing this I've been racking my brain trying to remember all the radical Christians I've met in my lifetime. Thus far, maybe one or two. Christianity gets a bad rap.

I never said that teachers should lead classes in prayer, but I did say that students should be allowed to pray themselves.
Aren't they? Back when I went to school, people could pray all they wanted, as long as they didn't do it during classes, and didn't involve others in their activity.

Considering what that Jesus guy supposedly said, I'd say doing anything beyond the above isn't at all Christian anyway. So what is the problem?

I never said that teachers should lead classes in prayer, but I did say that students should be allowed to pray themselves.

And, who says they can't?

If it interrupts the lesson, that's bad.... if it is a distraction to others (i.e. forming a prayer circle during class) that's bad... but if they want to go stand in a cupboard somewhere, all sounds fine.

Children ARE allowed to pray in school - so long as it really IS personal.

Obviously, a teacher should NOT be allowed to inspire, cause, or lead prayer.

Hey now! You can't oppress those that wish to force their Religious Morality on you! What are you a barbarian? :p
So I have been told. Oh, and a Godless Heathen, too. :D

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

We learned a bit (very little) about different religions in history and social studies classes in high school. Religion is an important sourse of knowledge, however it's different for nearly everyone. There are tons of schemetic issues dealling with religion. What religions will you talk about in school and what will you say about them? Even just picking one: Christianity, it will get very ugly very quickly with what you want to teach in school. Do you teach the Biblical Literalist or Unitarian perspective? Mormon or Seventh Day Aventist? Jehovah's Witness's or Quaker? All six of those are COMPLETELY different (and you might even argue that they are different religions). Now throw in equal time requirements for the various Muslim groups, all several thousand aspects of the Brahmin in the Hindu religions, Jews, Greek/Roman Pagans, Egyptian Pagans, Norse Pagans, another hundred or so Native American religions and tell me what will you teach about religion, besides the basic beliefs, that will be acceptable to all?

It isn't that religion is scorned upon, it is that (for the most part) we have relized that religion is much to important to be taught factory style. Religion is a very person thing that shouldn't be dictated by the state.

It's your right to not participate in the pledge, prayer, etc. Quit whining when those who choose to do it do so. You don't have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for refusing to pray. Nor do we have the right to be "liked" or thought of in "positive" ways for praying. If we banned anything that could potentially offend anyone, we would all be living by ourselves in small shacks in the middle of nowhere.

I have the right to not be exposed to religion in public schools. That's called separation of church and state.

Is not science a form of religion. Are not labs their temples? Is not the white coat the new form of the holy robe? We look for answers, and find only more questions. Religion is a way of bridging the gap between so many questions and not enough answers.

Is not Starbucks a religion? Are not coffee shops their temples? Is not the green cotton shirt and khaki pants the new form of the holy robe? We look for answers, yea - and we are caffeinated.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Because in the Past Religious Groups using their religion tried to supress all knowledge and that even today they continue to try. When religious beliefs are forced upon others it's bad for humanity. It causes trouble, There has been more blood and death in the Name of Religion, than in the name of any Political agenda.

Perhaps that's why they want to ignore it.

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "God In The Constitution"

A man that should be mandatory reading in schools.

But decreasing. Also, religion is taken out of shools because teaching religion in public schools is discrimanation!
I knew when I saw the title of the thread someone whould have said this;
Wrong if they taught only christianity or only islam then it's discrimination but he said religion which is taught here and should be taught as it gives understading on the true meanings of religions not just the fundies and suicide bombers that get on the news.

I have the right to not be exposed to religion in public schools. That's called separation of church and state.
That's all well & good. However, we have schools because humans need some basic skills & knowledge to be able to participate in our societies.

Since our societies have evolved (some haven't yet) from totalitarian religious regimes, religion forms the base of all our societies. Therefore it's in the best interest of the pupils to learn something about religions. You have every right not to have faith rammed down your throat in a public school. But you should be forced to learn something about your own culture. If you're not taught the basics of the dominant local religion, you'll have a much harder time relating to the society you live in, and it will be tough as hell to figure out why certain things are done in certain ways.

That's also why it's desirable for everyone, to obtain some basic knowledge about world history, and the mainstream religions. People need to know about it to communicate & interact successfully. Personally, I think NS General is a splendid example of why people need to learn about religions in school.

However, teaching faith is not a job for public schools. Just imagine how many conflicting faiths it would need to teach. It's neither possible, or desirable for anyone. Teaching faith is what Churches etc. Are for.

That's all well & good. However, we have schools because humans need some basic skills & knowledge to be able to participate in our societies.

Since our societies have evolved (some haven't yet) from totalitarian religious regimes, religion forms the base of all our societies. Therefore it's in the best interest of the pupils to learn something about religions. You have every right not to have faith rammed down your throat in a public school. But you should be forced to learn something about your own culture. If you're not taught the basics of the dominant local religion, you'll have a much harder time relating to the society you live in, and it will be tough as hell to figure out why certain things are done in certain ways.

That's also why it's desirable for everyone, to obtain some basic knowledge about world history, and the mainstream religions. People need to know about it to communicate & interact successfully. Personally, I think NS General is a splendid example of why people need to learn about religions in school.

However, teaching faith is not a job for public schools. Just imagine how many conflicting faiths it would need to teach. It's neither possible, or desirable for anyone. Teaching faith is what Churches etc. Are for.
This is all covered in History classes. All forms of religion are covered in history or cultural classes. You should learn about Christianity in the same classroom that you learn about the cuisine of Zimbabwe.

This is all covered in History classes. All forms of religion are covered in history or cultural classes. You should learn about Christianity in the same classroom that you learn about the cuisine of Zimbabwe.
Well... I'm not sure random African cuisine is important enough to belong in public schools, but basically I agree. However, the religion stuff is a huge topic, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to set aside an hour a week for a year or two, so people can be taught something besides the names of the things.

Well... I'm not sure random African cuisine is important enough to belong in public schools, but basically I agree. However, the religion stuff is a huge topic, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to set aside an hour a week for a year or two, so people can be taught something besides the names of the things.
Well, yeah maybe not. But as long as the focus is on the effect of religion and not on the religion itself, I don't see any line being crossed. History happened, religion was a part of it but once you start delving into a religion... that is not what our public tax dollars are for.

Well, yeah maybe not. But as long as the focus is on the effect of religion and not on the religion itself, I don't see any line being crossed. History happened, religion was a part of it but once you start delving into a religion... that is not what our public tax dollars are for.
We completely agree. Faith (regardless of which brand) doesn't belong in public schools. It's for private institutions.

Because in the Past Religious Groups using their religion tried to supress all knowledge and that even today they continue to try. When religious beliefs are forced upon others it's bad for humanity. It causes trouble, There has been more blood and death in the Name of Religion, than in the name of any Political agenda.

Perhaps that's why they want to ignore it.


I'd love to see your sources :)

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "God In The Constitution"

A man that should be mandatory reading in schools.


Then the Bible and commentaries explicating it's various passages should be mandatory as well. After all, we wouldn't want anymore ignorant, biased atheists who cannot debate biblical issues and instead resort to ridicule than we already have :rolleyes:

Because in the Past Religious Groups using their religion tried to supress all knowledge and that even today they continue to try. When religious beliefs are forced upon others it's bad for humanity. It causes trouble, There has been more blood and death in the Name of Religion, than in the name of any Political agenda.

Perhaps that's why they want to ignore it. So because it has been used to cause harm in the past, we shouldn't learn about it? Maybe we should drop Stalin's dictatorship from the History courses, as that was used for harm.
Incidentally, religious people and atheists/secularists have been pretty much equal at death and war.

I have the right to not be exposed to religion in public schools. That's called separation of church and state.



No, you don't. The seperation of church and state, which isn't even in the constitution in the first place, only means that the government cannot establish an official state religion. If people of a particular religion wish to pray when in school, and the school itself is not endorsing it, then they have that right. To say otherwise would be an infringement on the right to practice religion.

There definitely needs to be a Theology class taught in school.

Religion has had more influence in world history than any economic system or empire. To not understand the beliefs that shaped the world is detrimental to the education of students.

1) Not really spinning. These are all things involved with the issue at hand. Saying I am spinning is just avoiding what I am saying.

2) I didn't say that you support loud prayer, however, most proponents of the ideal of prayer in the classroom want it done during class time and many religions need to be speaking out loud to pray.

3) The teacher never said that. I did.


1. No, they are spinning. If I remember correctly, I haven't started yet on how you should accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, of course we could do that if you want ;)

2. Not really, many can do so quietly. The only real distraction would come from not paying attention to the lesson and starting at the Muslim on his little carpet-thingy praying in the direction of Mecca....which means you need some ADD medicine like me :D

3. Oh

Then the Bible and commentaries explicating it's various passages should be mandatory as well. After all, we wouldn't want anymore ignorant, biased atheists who cannot debate biblical issues and instead resort to ridicule than we already have :rolleyes:

How do you reconcile this vitriol with your supposed Christian lifestyle?

"Ignorant, biased atheists"? Because someone has a different view to your own, they are ignorant? Because they don't accept the dominion of one desert-prophet religion, they are biased?

"Cannot debate"? "Resort to ridicule"?

The sad truth is, many Atheists are far better acquainted with the Christian scripture than MOST 'Christians'. I doubt that you, yourself, have ever read the scripture in it's native languages... or have you?

Have you read the Mesopotamian scriptures that the Hebrew scriptures are based so heavily upon?

Why should the 'bible' be mandatory? It isn't actually all that well written... it's full of inconsistency, and the two different testaments do not match up. Why waste the time examining it? And - I'm willing to bet you only want the 'pro-Christian' propoganda commentaries, don't you?

Aren't they? Back when I went to school, people could pray all they wanted, as long as they didn't do it during classes, and didn't involve others in their activity.

Considering what that Jesus guy supposedly said, I'd say doing anything beyond the above isn't at all Christian anyway. So what is the problem?



Some angry atheist was suggesting that we shouldn't have that right.

There definitely needs to be a Theology class taught in school.

Religion has had more influence in world history than any economic system or empire. To not understand the beliefs that shaped the world is detrimental to the education of students.

I disagree. I'd say our present world is shaped FAR more by Mesopotamian (religion and) culture, than by any other factor.

Why not drop all the modern hocus-pocus, and just study Sumerian and Babylonian cultures?

Some angry atheist was suggesting that we shouldn't have that right.

Straw man. The contention throughout has been that there should be no OFFICIAL Christian prayer in classrooms, no teacher-led prayer.

As far as I recall, nobody has yet said that Christians should have their prayer-muscles removed.

Can't find a good argument to fight, you'll make one up?

This isn't about public prayer, this is about private prayer in public places. So remind me again why you're trying to spin my words to make me say what you want me to say?

How is 'private prayer' in public places in the spirit of 'enter into thy closet'?

Religion is the primary sorce of ignorance for most of the world. It should be scorned and eradicated.
It is also one of the main sources of intolerance.

Because sometimes it's not entirely possible to do so? Also, I'm going to assume that you don't know what the purpose of the statement was when taken in context: Don't pray just for attention and to be thought well of. It was a condemnation of hypocrisy, not of public prayer.

It was a condemnation of letting people know what you do for God. He believe your actions towards God are their own reward and need not be witnessed by others. He actually recommending in that same statement that you hide your acts of charity so as not to be praised for them (in the event that this motivates you). He was absolutely suggesting that you keep prayer PRIVATE and PERSONAL.

How do you reconcile this vitriol with your supposed Christian lifestyle?

"Ignorant, biased atheists"? Because someone has a different view to your own, they are ignorant? Because they don't accept the dominion of one desert-prophet religion, they are biased?

"Cannot debate"? "Resort to ridicule"?

The sad truth is, many Atheists are far better acquainted with the Christian scripture than MOST 'Christians'. I doubt that you, yourself, have ever read the scripture in it's native languages... or have you?

Have you read the Mesopotamian scriptures that the Hebrew scriptures are based so heavily upon?

Why should the 'bible' be mandatory? It isn't actually all that well written... it's full of inconsistency, and the two different testaments do not match up. Why waste the time examining it? And - I'm willing to bet you only want the 'pro-Christian' propoganda commentaries, don't you?


1. Are you saying that there are no ignorant, biased atheists? Because I've seen plenty.

2. If they are too lazy to study it in depth, then they shouldn't be voicing an uneducated opinion on the matter. How many times have we seen Matthew 7:1 taken out of context? Why, one person even said (and he was being serious): "Christianity is incorrect, because science has proven that clouds are not of sufficient density and volume to support a giant heavenly city in the sky, especially knowing that gravity would bring it all down." Most challengers of the scriptures know not of what they speak, they're just taking their impressions of Christianity as they have seen in the media and life and assuming they are correct. I hear the same garbage recycled into a debate all the time and I've about had as much as I can take without going insane.

3. Citations please, because I'm finding that hard to believe. This flies in the face of millions of Christian scholars, theologians, and evangelists. Simply going to infidels.org and reading a pre-manufactured argument against Christianity using certain scriptures does not equate to actually knowing what you're talking about.

4. If you're referring to Mesopotamian mythology, then yes, I've heard it cited as "proof" for the "fact that Christianity is a plagiarized religion" many many times before....I've also seen several aspects of that argument refuted many times as well.


5. Hardly! There may appear to be inconsistencies but, when studied in depth, none of them remain unsolved. I dare you to find a contradiction in the Bible that cannot be reconciled.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Have you ever heard of a church?! You know, that place where you learn about religion.


Originally Posted by Neo Rogolia
1. Are you saying that there are no ignorant, biased atheists? Because I've seen plenty.

I am one of the ignorant atheists. I do not want to learn something that is fiction that many say is fact. I would rather learn something based on fact. Something like evolution. Religion is based on faith (fiction).

Some angry atheist was suggesting that we shouldn't have that right.
Care to back up that statement? I've never ever heard anything remotely like that before.

By the way, what exactly is it you'd like to see public schools teach?

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." - Robert A. Heinlein

I go to a public school and I am taking a class called World Religions. Where we learn about the world's major religions.

"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics." - Robert A. Heinlein
Added emphasis.

Well then it's a fairly useless truism. Unless he made a list to go with the quote?

It was a condemnation of letting people know what you do for God. He believe your actions towards God are their own reward and need not be witnessed by others. He actually recommending in that same statement that you hide your acts of charity so as not to be praised for them (in the event that this motivates you). He was absolutely suggesting that you keep prayer PRIVATE and PERSONAL.

No, it was a criticism of those who do so soley for the reason of being seen by men. It's discussing the intentions of the prayer, whether it is for praise from men or to actually talk with God. In fact, Jesus commonly prayed with his apostles and, in some cases, in obviously public places.


Matthew 19:13

Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.


This situation was a public one.

Luke 3:21-22

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

This was right after being publicly baptized by John.

Acts 1:14

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Still contend that prayer is a soley private and personal thing?

Acts 7:59

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Doesn't seem like he had the convenience of being able to get up and pray in private, no?




I could go on with examples of group and/or public prayer, but you get the message right?

Straw man. The contention throughout has been that there should be no OFFICIAL Christian prayer in classrooms, no teacher-led prayer.

As far as I recall, nobody has yet said that Christians should have their prayer-muscles removed.

Can't find a good argument to fight, you'll make one up?



No, there was one person who said that he would rather there be no prayer in school at all, as he shouldn't be exposed to religion.

No, it was a criticism of those who do so soley for the reason of being seen by men. It's discussing the intentions of the prayer, whether it is for praise from men or to actually talk with God. In fact, Jesus commonly prayed with his apostles and, in some cases, in obviously public places.


Matthew 19:13

Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.


This situation was a public one.

Luke 3:21-22

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

This was right after being publicly baptized by John.

Acts 1:14

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Still contend that prayer is a soley private and personal thing?

Acts 7:59

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Doesn't seem like he had the convenience of being able to get up and pray in private, no?




I could go on with examples of group and/or public prayer, but you get the message right?

That isreal was cool with people praying out in the open? :p

It is also one of the main sources of intolerance.

Just like secularism is the main source of intolerance of theological perspectives ;)

No, there was one person who said that he would rather there be no prayer in school at all, as he shouldn't be exposed to religion.
Who was he, and what exactly did he mean?

And again, what sort of religious education is it you want? Teaching people Christian faith, or something else?

Have you ever heard of a church?! You know, that place where you learn about religion.




I am one of the ignorant atheists. I do not want to learn something that is fiction that many say is fact. I would rather learn something based on fact. Something like evolution. Religion is based on faith (fiction).



And how will you ever know that it's just fiction unless you study it? Willful ignorance works both ways you know.

Just like secularism is the main source of intolerance of theological perspectives ;)
Where? Secularism is about keeping religion out of the public. It has nothing to do with any religion's theological perspectives at all.

1. Are you saying that there are no ignorant, biased atheists? Because I've seen plenty.


I'd say that 'atheist' lends itself to 'ignorant' or 'biased' no more readily than does 'Christian'. Wouldn't you agree?


2. If they are too lazy to study it in depth, then they shouldn't be voicing an uneducated opinion on the matter. How many times have we seen Matthew 7:1 taken out of context? Why, one person even said (and he was being serious): "Christianity is incorrect, because science has proven that clouds are not of sufficient density and volume to support a giant heavenly city in the sky, especially knowing that gravity would bring it all down." Most challengers of the scriptures know not of what they speak, they're just taking their impressions of Christianity as they have seen in the media and life and assuming they are correct. I hear the same garbage recycled into a debate all the time and I've about had as much as I can take without going insane.


I would suggest that YOU, like most Christians, probably 'know not of what they speak'... to be honest. Have you read the Old Testament in the Hebrew? If not, then your opinion is just as 'uneducated' as the masses that you claim should remain silent.


3. Citations please, because I'm finding that hard to believe. This flies in the face of millions of Christian scholars, theologians, and evangelists. Simply going to infidels.org and reading a pre-manufactured argument against Christianity using certain scriptures does not equate to actually knowing what you're talking about.


It's not much of a surprise, when you think about it... but the majority isn't ALWAYS right. Appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy, my friend... and just because hundreds, thousands... even millions of people have blindly accepted something, doesn't make it any more true.

What is this 'infidels.org'?


4. If you're referring to Mesopotamian mythology, then yes, I've heard it cited as "proof" for the "fact that Christianity is a plagiarized religion" many many times before....I've also seen several aspects of that argument refuted many times as well.


Really? You've seen the fact that the flood was 'derived' from earlier stories, seriously refuted? Despite the fact that the Babylonian versions are older? Despite the fact that the Biblical wording (in Hebrew) almost exactly duplicates certain parts? Despite the fact that the Hebrew scriptures were not even WRITTEN until AFTER the Jews came out of Babylon?


5. Hardly! There may appear to be inconsistencies but, when studied in depth, none of them remain unsolved. I dare you to find a contradiction in the Bible that cannot be reconciled.

And, if I fudge the facts enough, I can make Black equal to White. That doesn't mean it's in the text, or that it is true. There are many direct inconsistencies (not least being the fact that the New Testament 'messiah' doesn't match the Old), which can be 'explained away' if you are willing to wriggle around enough.

Is a bat a bird?

And how will you ever know that it's just fiction unless you study it? Willful ignorance works both ways you know.

Do you know that Santa Claus is fiction unless you study the roots of him?

And how will you ever know that it's just fiction unless you study it? Willful ignorance works both ways you know.
How will studying religion change that?

No, there was one person who said that he would rather there be no prayer in school at all, as he shouldn't be exposed to religion.

Which is NOTHING LIKE saying that Christians should be somehow STOPPED from praying.

A personal preference is not equivalent to legislation.

Where? Secularism is about keeping religion out of the public. It has nothing to do with any religion's theological perspectives at all.



Which would be intolerance of religion in any public sphere. :)

Do you know that Santa Claus is fiction unless you study the roots of him?

And as it was said in the most holy poem The Night Before Christmas chapter 2 verse 3 Be ith goodith or coalith thou shall recieveith.

No, it was a criticism of those who do so soley for the reason of being seen by men. It's discussing the intentions of the prayer, whether it is for praise from men or to actually talk with God. In fact, Jesus commonly prayed with his apostles and, in some cases, in obviously public places.


Matthew 19:13

Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.


This situation was a public one.

Luke 3:21-22

When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

This was right after being publicly baptized by John.

Acts 1:14

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

Still contend that prayer is a soley private and personal thing?

Acts 7:59

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Doesn't seem like he had the convenience of being able to get up and pray in private, no?




I could go on with examples of group and/or public prayer, but you get the message right?

I didn't contend that it was. Jesus did. Are you claiming he didn't say that or that he was wrong when he said? Is the Bible wrong or was Jesus? Jesus prayed out of doors because this was often where he encountered people that needed his prayer. Jesus, generally, didn't have a closet to go to.

But you do have the convenience of being able to pray in private. As does every other American. So what is your complaint? That you wish to do it in public as well so people can see you. Feel free to. But don't expect the Bible to support your case.

I would also point out that Jesus was the last Rabbi. We know longer need religious leaders to help us speak to God because Jesus replaced that purpose when he died. Therefore, anyone other than Jesus leading a group prayer is suggesting we talk to God through them, as people did through Jesus in his time, and other Rabbis before him. Using examples of Jesus leading a group of people in prayer is a poor example since Jesus' purpose is to be a conduit to God. That, however, is not your purpose so you have no need to do so.

Then the Bible and commentaries explicating it's various passages should be mandatory as well. After all, we wouldn't want anymore ignorant, biased atheists who cannot debate biblical issues and instead resort to ridicule than we already have :rolleyes:
Actually he was a man who grew up a Christian and then turned away from it later in life. Debating biblical issues is reserved for the church. Learning why the grass is green is reserved for school. Get used to it. Or are you Unamerican?

Who was he, and what exactly did he mean?

And again, what sort of religious education is it you want? Teaching people Christian faith, or something else?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9595163&postcount=153



And I don't really care for religious education, as they would most likely mess it up. However, people do have the right to pray in class, providing it is not led by a teacher.

Just like secularism is the main source of intolerance of theological perspectives ;)

What does that even mean?

Actually he was a man who grew up a Christian and then turned away from it later in life. Debating biblical issues is reserved for the church. Learning why the grass is green is reserved for school. Get used to it. Or are you Unamerican?


Ingersoll shows very poor biblical comprehension skills, as is evidenced by certain criticisms of Christianity. If your anti-Christian book should be mandatory reading, then so should the Bible. If not, then I'll retract my statement about the Bible being required. Also, I could care less whether or not you deem me "unAmerican." I put God before America.

And how will you ever know that it's just fiction unless you study it? Willful ignorance works both ways you know.

If I am typical of Atheists, then the average Atheist is VERY well read, scripturally.

It's not a matter of 'willful ignorance'... it's a matter of simply not buying into one mythology.

I don't like religion being taught in science class but have no problem with religious studies as a subject.

I think the problem people have with teaching religion is the fault of fundamentalists, which is unfortunate for the religious people who can live fine with everyone else. Teaching religion, or mixing religion and politics has usually involved forcing one dominant religion on everyone.

But as for teaching religion, the problem is whether you teach from that religion's point of view or look critically at all religions equally. People don't like having other religions forced on them, but how many Christians would want their religion to be taught critically, and on equal terms with other religions and even mythoogy?

I have no problem with religion being taught in schools and agree with you. If it were to be taught, I agree that the teaching should be critical and from an academic perspective. Also, it would be important to study not only christianity, but also : Islam, Judeism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Toaism, Shinto, Confucionism....

Of course we don't teach it in school, our culture is becomming less and less religious and the chance of offending someone is much higher since opinions on the subject have become so differenciated. If you want your child to learn about religion, you can teach him/her outside of school or send the child to a religious school.
Blah Blah

Ingersoll shows very poor biblical comprehension skills, as is evidenced by certain criticisms of Christianity. If your anti-Christian book should be mandatory reading, then so should the Bible. If not, then I'll retract my statement about the Bible being required. Also, I could care less whether or not you deem me "unAmerican." I put God before America.
You can put God in your hat if you like. Why is it that Churches will only bring up the subject of the Seperation of Church and State when it concerns taxation? Teach the bible when you want to on your own time. Get your church to pay taxes and then maybe we'll talk about getting God into public institutions.

What does that even mean?


Any Christian views on government are not tolerated in a secular society?

Of course we don't teach it in school, our culture is becomming less and less religious and the chance of offending someone is much higher since opinions on the subject have become so differenciated. If you want your child to learn about religion, you can teach him/her outside of school or send the child to a religious school.
Blah Blah


Sushi kinda feels like rubber...

Any Christian views on government are not tolerated in a secular society?

That is because in a secular society religious views and morals are not used in governments. This is because not everyone believes in the same religion and to use one not only violates certain people's freedoms but also religious views and morals are not based in fact. Hence if you try to prove god you can't. So which would you rather have neo universal human rights or on groups views telling you what you can and cant do?

Any Christian views on government are not tolerated in a secular society?

Hmmm... I'm not sure I can get THAT message from what you wrote previously... but, okay.

I disagree, of course. I think that Christian views are happily tolerated, except where they overwhelm other views. As they unfortunately frequently do, especially under a government fuelled by Faith-Biased-Initiatives.

If I am typical of Atheists, then the average Atheist is VERY well read, scripturally.

It's not a matter of 'willful ignorance'... it's a matter of simply not buying into one mythology.

I was talking to that last guy who wouldn't even read the Bible at all.

Any Christian views on government are not tolerated in a secular society?
Look, I'm trying to stop all the Buddhist bullying in our government as well. One thing at a time.

That is because in a secular society religious views and morals are not used in governments. This is because not everyone believes in the same religion and to use one not only violates certain people's freedoms but also religious views and morals are not based in fact. Hence if you try to prove god you can't. So which would you rather have neo universal human rights or on groups views telling you what you can and cant do?


And who would endow us with those rights?

I was talking to that last guy who wouldn't even read the Bible at all.
Do you know anything about Robert Ingersoll?

Hmmm... I'm not sure I can get THAT message from what you wrote previously... but, okay.

I disagree, of course. I think that Christian views are happily tolerated, except where they overwhelm other views. As they unfortunately frequently do, especially under a government fuelled by Faith-Biased-Initiatives.


Actually....no.

http://www.akdart.com/culture3.html

And who would endow us with those rights?

The government and the people.

Ingersoll shows very poor biblical comprehension skills, as is evidenced by certain criticisms of Christianity. If your anti-Christian book should be mandatory reading, then so should the Bible. If not, then I'll retract my statement about the Bible being required. Also, I could care less whether or not you deem me "unAmerican." I put God before America.
As evidenced by ... ? Not a terribly convincing argument.

As for that other NS'ers statement about religion vs. public schools: Neither one of us knows exactly what he was talking about. He may have meant faith should be kept out of the classrooms, or he may have meant that all religion, in all it's forms, should be kept outside public schools.

About the secular bit: how do you equate that with intolerance? All faiths are free to express themselves in whatever manner they see fit, as long as they don't seek to impose themselves on the public through laws and the like. If that's intolerance, then what, pray tell, is tolerance? And how on earth would you enforce that 'tolerance'?

And yet again: What is it you want the schools to teach?

Do you know anything about Robert Ingersoll?


Yes, he was a well-known agnostic back in the 19th century.

I don't care if they teach about religion in school (I learned about it's history and it was pretty interesting *like a bloody action movie*), but they should give all major religions equal time.

Politicians can talk about religion all they want but if they want to impose a law on all of us based on a religious belief I think they should be beaten within an inch of their life and told not to try that shit again.

Religion is not needed for a healthy society or even to lead a spiritual life and kids in public school should not be indoctrinated with a religion, especially on the dime of all taxpayers who enjoy religious freedom and freedom from religion when wanted.

Actually....no.

http://www.akdart.com/culture3.html

Very nice, dear. What's your point?

That a faith-biased site thinks that it is being made a martyr? You shock me!

Was there a specific point you were trying to make, or do you just post links to religious propoganda sites for the good of your health?

Yes, he was a well-known agnostic back in the 19th century.
He was also close friends with a few ministers and read the bible frequently. He had no desire to argue about something in ignorance.

It's weird, and very unfair. At school you can learn language, maths, science, art, humanities etc. etc. but no religion. In politics, you can talk about all sorts of social issues, but no religion.

Frankly, I think that's rather ridiculous. Religion is also an important source of knowledge for about 80% of the world's population yet it's so scorned upon.

Because about 90 percent of so-called "religious" people in fact have a political agenda they are trying to impose on everyone else, and they are cloaking that agenda in the mantle of religion, and in fact, these people are so stuffed full of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice for anyone who isn't EXACTLY LIKE THEM...that they threaten other people's rights to their individuality, and the ability to make their own choices.

How about that?

Actually....no.

http://www.akdart.com/culture3.html

Yes, I would say that a source that starts by saying anyone who wishes to protect the seperation of Church and State is a "1968 California hippie; that is, a drunken, philandering, dope-smoking, baby-killing liberal." is not really a source at all. Forgive me if I got that far and then decided it was crap. I don't think I can remember the last time I was drunk, philandered, smoked dope or killed a baby and my friends would laugh at the idea of calling me a liberal as would half of the people on this board, but I fully support the seperation of Church and State.

I am a Theology major in college and found this particular topic interesting. It is something that has been discussed in many of my classes as well as a heated debate still continuing in my Ethics 101 class. I usually can provide a different aspect seeing that I am an Atheist perusing a degree on Theology. As many probably presume this is a bit strange (or as one person put it insulting) but I have learned so much about what influences people of faith and their views of apathetic and dissenting lives.


Religion should NOT be allowed in schools. I say this for two reasons: 1) There is no non-biased way to present a child with the idea of religion/s (especially seeing that most religions consider it a sin to recognize any other god/s). A person should be presented with a full platter able to pick and choose beliefs on an individual basis. Society and government cannot provide that. Its not a sterile environment. 2) Conflict. Simply put conflict stems from religion. Granted, most religions teach tolerance but few impose a great enough importance on that principle. If an individual could be a blank slate (child) and you presented all the facts about religion (in my mind) none would ever choose it.

Don’t get me wrong I believe religion is great for those that NEED it. And if you are out there saying you damn well don’t need it then you are the exact person I am talking about. History has shown time and again the mistakes of taking a religion too seriously will ALWAYS lead to violence and conflict. And yes I am saying that it should be used as a guideline NOT a stencil! If we could provide a child with a 100% independent offering of all religions then religion should be taught, until this it is a lost cause.

Being in Theology as an Atheist I’ve had to argue almost every day of my academic career, usually from the same people over and over again. Any feedback would be appreciated, I’m sure I will get many negative responses for this thread but I would like (and respond to) some valid counterpoints.

Because about 90 percent of so-called "religious" people in fact have a political agenda they are trying to impose on everyone else, and they are cloaking that agenda in the mantle of religion, and in fact, these people are so stuffed full of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice for anyone who isn't EXACTLY LIKE THEM...that they threaten other people's rights to their individuality, and the ability to make their own choices.

How about that?

Sources please.

The government and the people.


How do we endow ourselves with rights? If a government is created and represents the people, then it would be basically saying the same. Can I simply say "I have the right to (insert random thing here", and, behold, it is there? Of course not, even the Declaration of Independence claims nature's Creator as that which endows rights. Without a non-secular standard to base our rights upon, they become baseless claims made on a whim which cannot be maintained as existent.

How do we endow ourselves with rights? If a government is created and represents the people, then it would be basically saying the same. Can I simply say "I have the right to (insert random thing here", and, behold, it is there? Of course not, even the Declaration of Independence claims nature's Creator as that which endows rights. Without a non-secular standard to base our rights upon, they become baseless claims made on a whim which cannot be maintained as existent.

The Declaration of Independence is not a basis for law and is not a document from which our government was formed. The creator in the document expressed the religious views of the author which was specifically avoided in the US Constitution.

How do we endow ourselves with rights? If a government is created and represents the people, then it would be basically saying the same. Can I simply say "I have the right to (insert random thing here", and, behold, it is there? Of course not, even the Declaration of Independence claims nature's Creator as that which endows rights. Without a non-secular standard to base our rights upon, they become baseless claims made on a whim which cannot be maintained as existent.

Actually - your first assertion is pretty much accurate. Our rights stem from a person, or group of people, standing up and expressing a claim to a right - and that issue being discussed/debated/fought over.

Emancipation of slaves being the PERFECT example.

How do we endow ourselves with rights? If a government is created and represents the people, then it would be basically saying the same. Can I simply say "I have the right to (insert random thing here", and, behold, it is there? Of course not, even the Declaration of Independence claims nature's Creator as that which endows rights. Without a non-secular standard to base our rights upon, they become baseless claims made on a whim which cannot be maintained as existent.

Lets define what a right is shall we.

A right is the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim.

Plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract).

Now do you agree with these defenitions?

edit*
Actually - your first assertion is pretty much accurate. Our rights stem from a person, or group of people, standing up and expressing a claim to a right - and that issue being discussed/debated/fought over.

Emancipation of slaves being the PERFECT example.

Definatly. Emancipation of slaves is a great example of people giving themselves rights.

He was also close friends with a few ministers and read the bible frequently. He had no desire to argue about something in ignorance.

And he still managed to mess up. He was an excellent orator, but, sadly, his factual basis in scriptural teachings was a bit lacking. Of course, many anti-Christians love to hear misinterpretations because it fuels their hatred of Christianity. It's basically preaching to the choir (pun intended.)

How do we endow ourselves with rights? If a government is created and represents the people, then it would be basically saying the same. Can I simply say "I have the right to (insert random thing here", and, behold, it is there? Of course not, even the Declaration of Independence claims nature's Creator as that which endows rights. Without a non-secular standard to base our rights upon, they become baseless claims made on a whim which cannot be maintained as existent.
That creator friend of yours is not the one granting or ensuring your rights. Your secular society (that means you and your countrymen) does that. What is important, is that almost everyone accepts your constitution & amendments. If your society stops to recognise these pieces of paper, then they will no longer apply to you. It's that simple. And your god won't do a thing about it, if history is anything to go by.

Basically, if a lot of people recognise you have a certain right, then those people will make it so. If (almost) every German believed Jews didn't have a right to live, then they would simply kill them.

Your god have yet to interfer in any way we can observe, so you should trust your society to uphold your rights.

Lets define what a right is shall we.

A right is the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled or a thing to which one has a just claim.

Plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract).

Now do you agree with these defenitions?

edit*


Definatly. Emancipation of slaves is a great example of people giving themselves rights.



Who is to say people have these rights? Are these rights not concepts purely? Can you objectively prove we have these rights? Nature doesn't seem to think so: Lightning still strikes us, alligators still eat us, fires still burn us. One's "rights" do not exist without an absolute standard to uphold them. Civil Government seeks to preserve order for self-interest but overall, if the secularists define rights, then "rights" are nothing but human abstractions conceived to keep others from taking what you want to keep.

Very nice, dear. What's your point?

That a faith-biased site thinks that it is being made a martyr? You shock me!

Was there a specific point you were trying to make, or do you just post links to religious propoganda sites for the good of your health?


Too indignant to face the facts? I thought as much. :rolleyes:

i don't know where you live, but where *I* live, nearly all the people who pass the laws are Christian, and base thier political beliefs on Christian morals.
so all the laws that are passed here are, at heart, Christian. Think about that.

- you can choose from phantom fears, and kindness that can kill, but i will choose a path that's clear:
i will chose free will

That creator friend of yours is not the one granting or ensuring your rights. Your secular society (that means you and your countrymen) does that. What is important, is that almost everyone accepts your constitution & amendments. If your society stops to recognise these pieces of paper, then they will no longer apply to you. It's that simple. And your god won't do a thing about it, if history is anything to go by.

Basically, if a lot of people recognise you have a certain right, then those people will make it so. If (almost) every German believed Jews didn't have a right to live, then they would simply kill them.

Your god have yet to interfer in any way we can observe, so you should trust your society to uphold your rights.


Oh, but these rights do not exist following your logic. You may say they do, we may pretend they do, but, all-in-all, rights are just philosophical concepts which may or may not be adhered to. Suppose I kill you. Am I recognizing your rights? Am I saying "You have a right and I respect that?" What happens? Nothing. I might get arrested and punished, but, in the end, your right did not come through to save you. Why is this? Because your rights do not exist. There are no rights. We invented rights, they are our devices alone and that which man conceives will eventually die along with man. There is no higher standard of rights to uphold; they are as temporal as we. They are just little rules we play by and expect others to play by so that our lives will be better. But to say they actually exist is unprovable and improbable.

Who is to say people have these rights? Are these rights not concepts purely? Can you objectively prove we have these rights? Nature doesn't seem to think so: Lightning still strikes us, alligators still eat us, fires still burn us. One's "rights" do not exist without an absolute standard to uphold them. Civil Government seeks to preserve order for self-interest but overall, if the secularists define rights, then "rights" are nothing but human abstractions conceived to keep others from taking what you want to keep.
And your point is? Let's for a moment assume that the rights you have as an American are granted by God. What do you think will happen, if some anti-religious majority graps control of your nation? Do you think God will smite the lot, so you won't get shot when you try to get to a Sunday cermon? Or do you think those anti-religious people will simply strip you of your right to practice your religion?

About that site you linked to: the point was? Most of already know that fundies will feel their rights are trampled on, as long as they aren't allowed to establish a totalitarian religious regime. Most Christians, however, don't want to see that happen, and feel it's an affront to their religion.

Seeing as you don't even agree amongst yourselves, why do you expect society at large to pay attention to one of your factions?

Too indignant to face the facts? I thought as much. :rolleyes:

How am I indignant?

You post a propoganda site that STARTS out with rhetoric about hippies, and heads... well, pretty much nowhere.

What was the specific point you were trying to make?

This "I know you are, but what am I" mentality is doing nothing to further your argument.

On the contrary - it is becoming increasingly unclear what your argument IS.

Especially when your source is a jumble of ad hominem, personal opinion, and barely-veiled vitriol.

If there was something in specific you wished to discuss... some purpose your 'source' served... please explain.

Oh, but these rights do not exist following your logic. You may say they do, we may pretend they do, but, all-in-all, rights are just philosophical concepts which may or may not be adhered to. Suppose I kill you. Am I recognizing your rights? Am I saying "You have a right and I respect that?" What happens? Nothing. I might get arrested and punished, but, in the end, your right did not come through to save you. Why is this? Because your rights do not exist. There are no rights. We invented rights, they are our devices alone and that which man conceives will eventually die along with man. There is no higher standard of rights to uphold; they are as temporal as we. They are just little rules we play by and expect others to play by so that our lives will be better. But to say they actually exist is unprovable and improbable.
Err... Are you claiming I disagree with any of that?

Rights are just concepts. Trust me. Nothing really stops people from abusing eachother. Not human rights, and not gods either.

Who is to say people have these rights? Are these rights not concepts purely? Can you objectively prove we have these rights? Nature doesn't seem to think so: Lightning still strikes us, alligators still eat us, fires still burn us. One's "rights" do not exist without an absolute standard to uphold them. Civil Government seeks to preserve order for self-interest but overall, if the secularists define rights, then "rights" are nothing but human abstractions conceived to keep others from taking what you want to keep.

You realise that you argue VERY eloquently against the concept of 'god-given-rights'?

Who is to say people have these rights? Are these rights not concepts purely? Can you objectively prove we have these rights? Nature doesn't seem to think so: Lightning still strikes us, alligators still eat us, fires still burn us. One's "rights" do not exist without an absolute standard to uphold them. Civil Government seeks to preserve order for self-interest but overall, if the secularists define rights, then "rights" are nothing but human abstractions conceived to keep others from taking what you want to keep.

How does nature have anything to do with my right to vote? How does nature have anything to do with my right to own property? I'm talking about interactions between people and your bringing in nature and I'm not sure why. I mean if were talking about my right to own property how does lightning disprove that? If we are talking about a women's right to vote how does an alligator eating someone negate it? I am saying people create rights themselves and use the government as a source of protection of themselves by giving up certain rights and in turn the government protects the rest of their rights. Here are some examples. We have slavery. A group of people who were considered property at one point got together with others and forced the government to give them the right to own property, to vote, and to hold office. These rights did not exist until the slaves got together and claimed them. Lets look at women's voting rights. Up until a point in time women did not have the right to vote, they could not hold property, and they could not work in certain jobs. They got together and help make these rights for themselves. Now I've just given you some examples of people making their own rights. Now its your turn to show me the absolute standard of which you claim rights come from.

And your point is? Let's for a moment assume that the rights you have as an American are granted by God. What do you think will happen, if some anti-religious majority graps control of your nation? Do you think God will smite the lot, so you won't get shot when you try to get to a Sunday cermon? Or do you think those anti-religious people will simply strip you of your right to practice your religion?

About that site you linked to: the point was? Most of already know that fundies will feel their rights are trampled on, as long as they aren't allowed to establish a totalitarian religious regime. Most Christians, however, don't want to see that happen, and feel it's an affront to their religion.

Seeing as you don't even agree amongst yourselves, why do you expect society at large to pay attention to one of your factions?

Thank you for proving my point that rights do not exist following secular logic.

Also: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050513.shtml

We're not going to take over America and establish an oppressive theocracy, get over your paranoia. Your fears and stresses are bad for your health ;)

How does nature have anything to do with my right to vote? How does nature have anything to do with my right to own property? I'm talking about interactions between people and your bringing in nature and I'm not sure why. I mean if were talking about my right to own property how does lightning disprove that? If we are talking about a women's right to vote how does an alligator eating someone negate it? I am saying people create rights themselves and use the government as a source of protection of themselves by giving up certain rights and in turn the government protects the rest of their rights. Here are some examples. We have slavery. A group of people who were considered property at one point got together with others and forced the government to give them the right to own property, to vote, and to hold office. These rights did not exist until the slaves got together and claimed them. Lets look at women's voting rights. Up until a point in time women did not have the right to vote, they could not hold property, and they could not work in certain jobs. They got together and help make these rights for themselves. Now I've just given you some examples of people making their own rights. Now its your turn to show me the absolute standard of which you claim rights come from.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Pick one.

You realise that you argue VERY eloquently against the concept of 'god-given-rights'?


Thanks, although I was playing devil's advocate to prove that, following secular logic, these rights do not exist. For one to recognize rights, one must recognize a higher standard and/or God.

Pick one.

PSST. The Constitution supplanted the DOI......

PSST. The Constitution supplanted the DOI......

and

The Declaration of Independence is not a basis for law and is not a document from which our government was formed. The creator in the document expressed the religious views of the author which was specifically avoided in the US Constitution.

Pick one Neo.

Thank you for proving my point that rights do not exist following secular logic.

Also: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050513.shtml

We're not going to take over America and establish an oppressive theocracy, get over your paranoia. Your fears and stresses are bad for your health ;)
Checking that site right now. Anyway, what do you mean by "exist"? The rights we grant eachother are very real, depending on how you define it.

As you yourself explained: if you kill me, you'll go to jail. That's a "right" in action. You fuck with it, and society will clubber you. They'll not just do it to settle a score, or to prevent you from violating another's rights. They'll also do it to demonstrate to everyone else, that these rights aren't just some fancy idea.

Anyway, I've seen you write that you want to live in a Christian theocracy. That's what brought about my remark. Disregarding for a moment, that Americans won't let that happen, here's my personal veiw on it:
I'm not from America. You aren't that great for my country's economy. Your country is a menace to around 1/3 of the world's population.

Trust me, I'd love to see America turn into an isolationist theocracy. And I'm not the only one ;)

There was a World Religions class at my old high school. It dealt with broad concepts, and went through all of the major religions as well as a few uncommon ones. Honestly, school is a place of learning, not worship. Studying various beliefs is fine, but bringing individual ones into the system is just asking for trouble. If Christians get their own class, you'll soon have the Muslims at your door. Don't forget the Buddhists. Wait, the Christians are split up on a few minor issues. Now we have protestants and catholicism. Eastern Orthodox wants their say in the matter too! Uh oh, Atheists are protesting and now there's an anti-religion class.

Individual religions should stay out of the education system. A single class covering religion as a whole is fine, but no deeper than that. Stick to a church, mosque, temple, or whatever your place of worship is called. That's where you can, obviously, worship and learn in detail about your specific religion. If going to church on Sunday isn't enough for you jesus freaks, organize a bible study every day of the week.

And he still managed to mess up. He was an excellent orator, but, sadly, his factual basis in scriptural teachings was a bit lacking. Of course, many anti-Christians love to hear misinterpretations because it fuels their hatred of Christianity. It's basically preaching to the choir (pun intended.)
You offer no evidence. What am I supposed to say? No, he didn't mess up!

Thank you for proving my point that rights do not exist following secular logic.

Also: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050513.shtml

We're not going to take over America and establish an oppressive theocracy, get over your paranoia. Your fears and stresses are bad for your health ;)

And yet the Department of Justice recently declared the efforts of the FBI will deal with a new threat to this nation. It is not terrorism, kiddy porn, or even the drug trade. The new problem is obscinity.

After all Jenna Jameson poses a great risk to this nation.

So what was that about a theocracy?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441767&highlight=Jenna

PSST. The Constitution supplanted the DOI......



Psst. The Constitution concerns law only, the rights contained therein are presupposed to exist based upon the statement in the DoI.

Psst. The Constitution concerns law only, the rights contained therein are presupposed to exist based upon the statement in the DoI.
Psst. The DoI is not the basis of our country. The DoI is a declaration. Nothing more. It has absolutely nothing to do with our country anymore.

Thanks, although I was playing devil's advocate to prove that, following secular logic, these rights do not exist. For one to recognize rights, one must recognize a higher standard and/or God.

That doesn't make any sense.

For one to recognise rights, one must ONLY recognise those rights. In fact, those rights 'exist' only in the capacity in which we allow them to exist.

You are willing to believe in your 'higher power', if you wish - but doing so doesn't change your 'rights'.

*Sigh*... and you made such a good argument, previously....

Checking that site right now. Anyway, what do you mean by "exist"? The rights we grant eachother are very real, depending on how you define it.

As you yourself explained: if you kill me, you'll go to jail. That's a "right" in action. You fuck with it, and society will clubber you. They'll not just do it to settle a score, or to prevent you from violating another's rights. They'll also do it to demonstrate to everyone else, that these rights aren't just some fancy idea.

Anyway, I've seen you write that you want to live in a Christian theocracy. That's what brought about my remark. Disregarding for a moment, that Americans won't let that happen, here's my personal veiw on it:
I'm not from America. You aren't that great for my country's economy. Your country is a menace to around 1/3 of the world's population.

Trust me, I'd love to see America turn into an isolationist theocracy. And I'm not the only one ;)


Violence does not prove the truth of a concept, it just proves the desire of society to adhere to that concept. You deny that God exists, yet if a large mob were to attack you in His name, would you then be forced to concede He does? Anyway, a Christian theocracy is good in concept but unattainable in practice. After all, it was attempted many times for a good 800 years or so, but nobody managed to pull one off that followed most tenets of Christian faith. Much like a communist society would be wonderful, but it wouldn't actually work.


Regarding the last two points in your third paragraph:

1. Then stop buying our products and learn to compete on your own. That is, assuming it's possible to compete with American ingenuity, innovation and resources.

2. Riiiiiight, of course we want to conquer 1/3 of the world :rolleyes: