|
On August 18 2009 11:31 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote:
You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas. There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here  I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is. I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you  I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
|
On August 18 2009 12:31 0neder wrote:
I studied selections from the Bible as part of my AP English class. We didn't study it as a religious text. Gimme a break guys, not a big deal.
Also, if you knew anything about the context of Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, you would understand that his views towards the issue were a lot more liberal than those of religion-phobes today.
Negative experiences with religion and silly behavior from religious people should not be extrapolated to judge everyones' diverse religious experiences. I respect the opinions and choices of atheists and religious people alike. That doesn't mean I accuse people I don't agree with of lacking intelligence.
theres a difference between studying sections as a part of a class such as AP Lit to understand allusions and a class on the bible itself.
make it an afterschool activity or a bible club or something.
|
Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those?
Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
Dude, they're not labeled religion, they're labeled mythologi, a ruined definition and translates in most people heads as "lies" or "not true" by default..
edit: oh and infact let me drop a tiny bomb, since a myth basically is a set of stories a culture tells itself, about itself (and often revealing a higher truth) i would say it's more apropriate to say christian mythology if your gonna set it up against the others who have missed the "ppl still worship it" name; religion
|
On August 18 2009 12:39 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 11:31 Louder wrote:On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote:
You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas. There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is. I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period. Greek and Roman mythology is taught in school. Why is it you don't complain about those? Also, I'm agnostic, so you can't put me in the box labeled "religious".
For starters, I don't think they are required curriculum.
And then there is the fact that greek and roman mythology are not a big part of today's religions.
And finally, the fact that those are a study of beliefs rather than study of a text.
It would be easy to study christian beliefs without studying the actual bible.
|
All mythology should be taught in school in historical context AS MYTHOLOGY Though. Let people realize for themselves that tons of people have believed tons of shit throughout history so the odds of you and the talking snake having it correct are pretty slim.
How can something be true on one side of the mountain and not on the other?
Also id love for a class to be called mythology and have the required text in a public school. The religous nuts would be pissed the fuck off.
The mythology class I took in College was great. Was nice having the old testament in there and probably ruffle a few peoples feathers.
|
I'm going to start every post now with, "I'm agnostic" so people stop confusing my standpoint with being religious.
You don't study religious texts to learn the Pantheons? Bulfinch's Mythology? Did you read The Diary of Anne Frank? Some people believe the holocaust never existed, so should that be taught as mythology?
The only reason that this is raising an issue is because it's... omg... CHRISTIANITY! Oh the humanity! It's like you mention any other religion, and people are shrugging. You mention Christianity and they grab their pitchforks and torches.
It's a knee-jerk reaction to hearing anything with the word "christ" in it.
I'm tired of people complaining about BS that doesn't even really matter. So they teach the Bible secularly in school. So they have an elective religious Bible study. You care, why? You shouldn't. It's elective. The fact that they have to have a law that ALLOWS it despite other religions being taught in school, is just ridiculous and shows the state we're in, in this union.
|
You don't study religious texts to learn the Pantheons? Bulfinch's Mythology? Did you read The Diary of Anne Frank? Some people believe the holocaust never existed, so should that be taught as mythology?
wooow wow wow wow, dude read up the definition of myth again
|
If this was true in California (which it would never be lolololol), I would have been protesting all of high school.
|
|
|
On August 18 2009 05:37 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:30 daz wrote:On August 18 2009 03:09 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote:
i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at? zechariah 14:1-2 2 samuel 12:11-12 i think theres a few more as well Those are prophecies (declarative statements) not commands (imperative statements) ie I believe that The Nazis killed millions of Jews in the Holocaust Was that second line an Anti-Semetic statement? no it was a Statement of Fact, a declarative, it Happened Change it to Hitler said The Nazis should Kill millions of Jews in the Holocaust The second line there is an imperative command, according Hitler, the Nazis Should do this. Now a God as he is described in the bible can make future declarative statments... (it should be noted in both of those examples it is the women of Israel/the king that will be raped because of the disaster that is coming on them for disobedience) it is not a command or even permission for israel to do the same.
zecchariah 14:1:2
1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. 2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
It's true that here God is making a future declarative statement. He is declaring that in the future he will gather these people for the purpose of taking that city, robbing the houses and raping their women. As to the reasoning behind it, who cares? Is there any situation where you think rape is acceptable?
|
On August 18 2009 03:28 Lebesgue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 02:53 Aegraen wrote:On August 18 2009 01:47 Jibba wrote:On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes. Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics. Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him. First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%. I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies. I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose? You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection). Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
|
On August 18 2009 11:31 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote:
You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page.
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas. There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is. I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period.
Thomas Aquinas disagrees with you.
|
Why are people equating all religious people with closed mindedness? Why because they believe in something that is not rational? Give me a break. Plenty of people believe in God and loath the established religions, because they all man run and have their own agendas and are closed to any change or opposition.
|
On August 18 2009 12:35 blomsterjohn wrote:Alltho no matter who's right or wrong, i think the % of this failing is higher than 50% to put it like that, now this may be a unreliable source and i dont live in the us so i wouldnt personally know but however when you get something like this out of a governor pluss a hardcore creationist at the board of education : Show nested quote +"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion. and continuing : "Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.) http://www.progressivepuppy.com/the_progressive_puppy/2009/08/texas-governor-now-promotes-theocracy.htmlThis was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
In any case, as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools, so shall be religious. If it was me, neither would be inundated in the school system and the Education would be as unbiased as could be, but good luck trying to keep teacher bias of schools as you can plainly see in the College system today in which it's about 90% Lib/Statist/Demo to 10% Cons/Libertarian/Repub.
So, in lieu of the aforementioned you might as well give children both sides. Also, it's quite hilarious to think High School students are incapable of reasoning. Give them both sides, let them make up their own minds. I also believe that as long as you are doing this, you should be giving the kids/parents as much choice as possible to let them decide which school they want to go to; expanding voucher programs and generally privatizing more of the Education system which is massively failing our children. Thanks NEA.
|
On August 18 2009 13:47 Slaughter wrote:
Why are people equating all religious people with closed mindedness? Why because they believe in something that is not rational? Give me a break. Plenty of people believe in God and loath the established religions, because they all man run and have their own agendas and are closed to any change or opposition.
I'm not sure many religious people know this, but Jesus was against any established religion. He was a pauper.
One thing I've always been curious of; why in the Ancient world was God so intervening or at least more prevalent in the physical realm, but in the past 2000 years he has disappeared. This more than anything is the reason I'm agnostic. I'm sure more people would be believers if suddenly New York or London had a Soddom and Gomorrah moment. Surely, Vegas is quite a bit more "sinful" wouldn't you say?
|
Isn't it ironic that the freedom that allows Christians to worship is the same freedom that they are now stepping on? Seriously, some of these christians are borderline retarded.
|
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
This, my friends, is the best Aegraen quote to date.
|
United States43354 Posts
On August 18 2009 14:06 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it. This, my friends, is the best Aegraen quote to date.
It's really not. It's nowhere near as good as "the reason I was completely factually wrong about the subject I was arguing is because I don't understand the subject. However I think...."
|
You do know that Natural Law, which is a construct out of Religion; that is, we derive our inalieable rights from a Creator, is the basis for this countrys founding? I would argue that Deism was the main religious foundation for the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Whaaat, ok i have no doubt you would argue till you go potatos but i still wouldnt agree with you, and even if i did or if it was a fact that still doesn't justify it happening in 2009 in any way more. Thats...disturbing
I like how you lump Global Warming into creationism. I guess if you don't believe in the psuedo sciences used to come about the conclusions of Global Warming you are a creationist fundamentalist, or at least associated with them? Give me a break. There is more science out there that debunks GW than is in favor of it.
Actually i didnt mean to have GW as a point, it was simply apart of the article/blog relevant to the subject so, however if you'r one of those who say "GW ISNT ANYTHING< ITS ONLY UP 0,5C" (dont qutoe on me on numbers, source is home schooled evangalican in jesus camp) thats quite disturbing aswell.
as long as Atheist and Secularist views are in abundance in schools
huh?
Never been for a bias education where did you get that from, as said earlier; it's the practise of this new law that seems quite suspicious, not the idea.(tho i would swap it to world religion, or religious history starting with the godess mother)
|
On August 17 2009 18:02 KrAzYfoOL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2009 16:38 Lz wrote:
if schools can teach ppl about things as stupid as evolution then they can surely teach people about the Bible from a historical point of view.. you know the stuff our country was buildt on.. Evolution is an integral part of biology, if biology is to be taught then evolution has to be taught along with it. The bible pertains to creationism which is not another subject on it's own. Also the founders of America paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity, and believed above all, in a secular Government. It's absolutely pathetic that i, a non-American should be informing you about this. Please hang your head in shame good sir.
Yeah Lz, stick to playing starcraft <__<
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
