Pandora said:
Truth and his own motivations, I should say. He never shied away from truth though. For better or worse, there it was, at the end of every trial he inflicted.
He loved to push buttons, I think to test what "lessers" would do.Forcing me to protect myself? Blow Job?
- Thread starter Sarcasmo
- Start date
Truth and his own motivations, I should say. He never shied away from truth though. For better or worse, there it was, at the end of every trial he inflicted.
He loved to push buttons, I think to test what "lessers" would do.I think the point is that intellegent design is religious, and so if it's to be taught in a private school... boo-ya, however it's strictly unConstitutional to teach religion in a public school.eileenbunny said:
eileenbunny
Druish Princess
zengirl said:
Is it really unconstitutional to teach religion in a public school? The constitution gives us freedom of religion. I think it would be unconstitutional to present a religious belief as the ONLY TRUTH or the ONLY WAY in public school, but to just mention it as one way of thinking isn't really violating anyone's constitutional rights. It's not taking away any freedom at all. The freedom seems to come from knowing all or at least several points of view and being able to make up your own mind what you want to think.
theres the whole separation of church and state, and if they can't even say the pledge of alliegance anymore because of "under God" then they certainly won't allow intelligent design (as recently reflected in a recent state supreme court)eileenbunny said:
and seeing how it's losing merit even within the catholic community... I don't think it's likely to be entering any state curriculums anytime soon
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503
eileenbunny said:
I think it's unconstitutional at this point because we mandate that kids go to school and take particular courses, and for the time you're teaching them that particular religion they have no options. Thus their freedom to not care and not be "recruited" is being compromised.
Freedom of religion doesn't mean that you can inflict it on others whenever you want. It means you are permitted to observe whatever you want without infringing on others' rights. In other words, teach religion in churches, which exist for that sole purpose. You are there to learn and observe your particular religion already. Teach pure academics in schools, which likewise exist for that sole reason.
College, where you choose your courses, would be the exception.
But in my opinion religion should never be a part of schoolwork unless it's merely informative because unless you worship the biological processes of trees it is completely subjective and unprovable and thus not scientific or academic at all.
eileenbunny
Druish Princess
Sarcasmo said:
I'm not saying I think we should just teach one religious belief. Teach them all. I don't currently have any religious beliefs at all, but I'm really glad I know as much as I do about different religions (not that I got any of that in school). This makes me more well rounded and able to debate with people and think for myself.
I'm not sure I know what pure academics is, but dictionary.com has this to say:
ac·a·dem·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-dmk)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning.
Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational.
Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.
Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic.
Based on formal education.
Formalistic or conventional.
Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See Synonyms at theoretical.
Having no practical purpose or use.
What I am saying is that it aught to be purely informative. Just let kids no what everyone thinks. At least they can carry a conversation and not be totally ignorant.
I don't think it's until college, when we have the ability to make the choice for ourselves, that we are truly prepared to explore religion and philosophy. These are pretty weighted courses and it really does take an open and mature mind to sort through all of the details and really learn and appreciate.eileenbunny said:
I think when we're kids, we're far too impressionable to be able to make our own minds about something as controversial as religion. That's like letting toddlers vote.
eileenbunny
Druish Princess
zengirl said:
I guess this is where opinion comes in. I think children are expected to make these decisions before college. I was personally forced into Catholic Confirmation at age 14. Many Jews have their Bar Mitzvah's or Bat Mitzvah's at around that age. Most religions want you to choose well before the legal age of consent. I started questioning my beliefs in God when I was 7 at about the same time that I started questioning Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
I don't think any age is too young to start learning. Choosing is the part that takes time. Just learning doesn't put pressure on anyone to choose though.
zengirl said:
Amen. It would be illegal to declare yourself a member of a religion until the age of 18 if I had my way. Kids have no clue what religion and God are really all about. Hell, most adults don't either.
KNYTE said:
Since when did you become Mr. Touchy? I'm sure you've never said something in jest that insulted anyone...
KNYTE said:
What is funny about that statement is that he never said that humans evolved from something only that it has been proven that organisms evolve
KNYTE said:
I happen to believe that animals have souls...Are you saying that I'm wrong, do you have anything to back this up or is it just a theory?
I know it seems like I'm picking on you Knyte, but honestly I find your passion for what you believe to be a great thing...I just hope that you can open you mind to other's views and beliefs as you are hoping that we open our minds to yours.
i'm going to stick up for knyte here. i don't think he's been out of line at all for expressing his views. the insulting part comes in when people start being disrespectful of others, by calling them names, their ideas stupid, or dissing one's beliefs by calling their own the best. i haven't seen him do that. regardless of how or what i think, i don't think he's crossed any lines here.
I never said that he was not allowed to defend his point. I just asked that if he wants everyone else to view his ideas with an open mind he should do the same. Some are too quick to argue and may misread what someone else is saying...like with theac's post...
i wasn't replying to just you, jj.
i've been reading knyte's posts as him having a very open mind to other beliefs without losing sight of his own. that's all. it seems he's been very attentive to all the other replies.
i've been reading knyte's posts as him having a very open mind to other beliefs without losing sight of his own. that's all. it seems he's been very attentive to all the other replies.
JJ Lady said:
I usually end live debates with yelling "Ya'll a buncha bustas", kicking over the table and then running from the place I was in flailing my arms and screaming like a 13 year old girl who lost her hair clips. I then steal the nearest available mail truck and spend the rest of the week delivering mail to all the wrong houses, afterwhich I set demo charges and blow the mail truck to kingdom come.
Full motion video?