Conquer Club

muy_thaiguy wrote:

demon7896 wrote:the constitution calls for a separation of church and state or school, i forgot

Actually, that phrase is no where in the constitution. Only that no religion will be made the official religion of the country. That is all.

But people still hold the right near and dear, and it is generally practiced.

Yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes

Bavarian Raven wrote:we all know religions like to "brainwash" people so should religion be banned from schools and the such so students can think freely?

I MEAN IN SCHOOLS ALONE!!!


and before you all start ripping into me i want to try and have an open "kind" and "clean" debate on the topic...so if you want to flame me, go to flame wars!!!

Ummm . . . okay . . . so how can you promote free thought without allowing others to think about religion? Sorry, but you have an extremely large hole in your basic premise. Try again.

If you are going to allow "free thought" in school, that means you can think or teach about ANYTHING. That includes (insert shocked gasping noise here) RELIGION. So actually, we already have a ban on free thought in schools, by not allowing religion there.

Oops.

So the only way to promote free thought is to not allow free thought?

And by the way . . . these days there are many more cases of the non-religious movements brain-washing the masses into believing that religion brain-washes people, than there are actual cases of religions brain-washing people.

Wow. Even I have a hard time making sense of that last sentence, but if you work at it you'll get it.

I'm going to go wash my brain now.

Edit -- I assume you meant public schools in which case I agree that the state shouldn't favor any viewpoint about religion whether it be the most popular in that country or not. I also think that the state should not ridicule any religion held by any of its citizens, nor should it encourage people to reject religion in any way.

Nobunaga wrote:... OK, a few Yes or No questions (opinions, explanations welcome)

... In US public schools, should the following be permitted?

... 1. Kids praying (on their own or in groups of kids) before lunch.

... 2. Kids wearing "Jesus Loves You" shirts.

... 3. Teachers wearing "Jesus Loves You" shirts.

... 4. Teachers wearing "Who would Jesus bomb?" shirts. (seen those?)

... 5. A student Christian club using school facilities (meeting in a classroom after school, ie)

... 6. Prayers said during school hours for all students after some great tragedy (9/11, whatever)

... 7. A school-wide "Moment of Silence" in the same situation

... 8. Kids wearing those little hats Jews wear (forgot what they are called)

... 9. Teachers in those hats.

... That's it.

...

1. Yes, since they aren't forcing anyone to join
2. Yes
3. No, because teachers should dress professionally (suit/tie/skirt/khakis whatever) (but i am fine with them wearing a cross necklace/bracelet/whatever)
4. No, same as #3, and also it would create immense problems among students
5. Yes, no one ever uses some of those rooms anyway after school, and as long as the teacher isn't being paid to lead it then tax money isn't really affected.
6. Nope
7. No (if they want to allow people to meet somewhere before school to do this than I don't care)
8. Yes (yarmulke) (I don't care if they wear those, or the Sikh turbans or Muslim head scarves or whatever fits their religion)
9. Yes (same as above)

Would it surprise you to find out I am a Christian?

Well, looking at the poll results....it's a resounding NO. Next.

Harijan wrote:
I am a scientist, I do not believe in the creation story (as creationist tell it). I am here to tell you that science is most certainly a belief system that is ultimately based in faith.

Anyone who claims different simply does not understand the basic premis of scientific thought.

Uh, sorry, but the only "belief system" in science is that of proof -- proof that is, if no error is committed (which would make it erroneous, not valid science) verifiable by ANYONE, regardless of their beliefs, provided they have the same tools and conditions available. AND.. questioning any particular test or technique is very much a part of science, not proof against it.

AS for the original question. Religion is very much a part of history, politics and why people do things. To exclude it therefore severely limits understanding. Similarly, though entire groups want to discount "science" in total as a bunch of anti-religious bias, it forms the basis of so much of modern life that knowledge of science is fundamental, whether anyone agrees with a particular part or not.

...and therein you have the falasy of your argument. A real education EXPOSES people to DIFFERENT ideas. It gives kids (and adults) enough basic information to understand the world around them, and the tools to carry forth in whatever fields they desire.

... In US public schools, should the following be permitted?

... 1. Teachers praying on groups of kids before lunch

... 2. Kids wearing shirts.

... 3. Teachers wearing Jesus

... 4. Teachers wearing shirts.

... 5. A student using school facilities

... 6. Pray for tragedy

... 7. A school

... 8. Kids wearing Jews

... 9. Teachers in hats.

...

1. That just isn't right
2. That is acceptable
3. hmmm...not quite sure what you mean here...but it sounds ok
4. This should be mandatory
5. Occasionally, this would be ok
6. No
7. yes
8. Again, not quite sure what you are asking...it actually sounds a little distasteful.
9. I see no problem here.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AS for the original question. Religion is very much a part of history, politics and why people do things. To exclude it therefore severely limits understanding. Similarly, though entire groups want to discount "science" in total as a bunch of anti-religious bias, it forms the basis of so much of modern life that knowledge of science is fundamental, whether anyone agrees with a particular part or not.

...and therein you have the falasy of your argument. A real education EXPOSES people to DIFFERENT ideas. It gives kids (and adults) enough basic information to understand the world around them, and the tools to carry forth in whatever fields they desire.

True. But exposing kids to plain bullshit doesn't sound good to me. There has to be a good reason to include religion in aspects. For example, philosophy and history can certainly talk about religion, but creationism taught alongside evolution as an equally valid theory isn't.

A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

Napoleon Ier wrote:A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

yes but considering many schools will certainly not have the resources, staffing, or stability in their environment to do all of these things then what?

For schools who dont have the best of all worlds type of situation that this quoted sentiment expresses, i think you sort of leave religion alone in the school. If kids wish to have programs after school that involve religion or pray, you let them. The lights are probably going to be on anyway, schools arent done for the day right after the last bell. You dont teach religion since you dont have the resources to get away from the necessities your supposed to be teaching.

I think for the majority of schools this is a bit of a non issue world wide.

Napoleon Ier wrote:A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

Only when it's done so that it doesn't interfere with the other classes. I'm not against a "religious studies" class as long as it deals with every religion equally and maybe major religions a bit more. But the problem there I think is that it would take way too much time to explain them all enough and also it would be very hard not to let any religion get the overhand.

But there is still no reason to teach creationism in science class.

Napoleon Ier wrote:A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

Creationism is no more valid than a million other alternatives, one simply teaches evoltion and points out the current deficiencies in that theory .

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

Only when it's done so that it doesn't interfere with the other classes. I'm not against a "religious studies" class as long as it deals with every religion equally and maybe major religions a bit more. But the problem there I think is that it would take way too much time to explain them all enough and also it would be very hard not to let any religion get the overhand.

But there is still no reason to teach creationism in science class.

True to an extent. I still reckon a good education makes this whole debeate irelevant, (though obviously good educations are far and few between)

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

Only when it's done so that it doesn't interfere with the other classes. I'm not against a "religious studies" class as long as it deals with every religion equally and maybe major religions a bit more. But the problem there I think is that it would take way too much time to explain them all enough and also it would be very hard not to let any religion get the overhand.

But there is still no reason to teach creationism in science class.

True to an extent. I still reckon a good education makes this whole debeate irelevant, (though obviously good educations are far and few between)

Well a perfect education would indeed make it irrelevant. But there is no perfect education, so the only way to give a good education is reasoning which things the kids need to learn and which they can learn but don't need to learn. Religion has a very good place in education at the moment.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:A good education should present both, and will have given the kids the right intellectual equipment and maturity to figure out for thmselves what they believe.

Only when it's done so that it doesn't interfere with the other classes. I'm not against a "religious studies" class as long as it deals with every religion equally and maybe major religions a bit more. But the problem there I think is that it would take way too much time to explain them all enough and also it would be very hard not to let any religion get the overhand.

But there is still no reason to teach creationism in science class.

True to an extent. I still reckon a good education makes this whole debeate irelevant, (though obviously good educations are far and few between)

Well a perfect education would indeed make it irrelevant. But there is no perfect education, so the only way to give a good education is reasoning which things the kids need to learn and which they can learn but don't need to learn. Religion has a very good place in education at the moment.

I dont know, Theology and Rs have their merits.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Well a perfect education would indeed make it irrelevant. But there is no perfect education, so the only way to give a good education is reasoning which things the kids need to learn and which they can learn but don't need to learn. Religion has a very good place in education at the moment.

I dont know, Theology and Rs have their merits.

What's Rs?
And theology has the problem of giving enough time to each religion. Not because of ill-intent on anyone, but simply because it's hard not to favor one more thanks to both teachers and pupils being slanted towards one side.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Well a perfect education would indeed make it irrelevant. But there is no perfect education, so the only way to give a good education is reasoning which things the kids need to learn and which they can learn but don't need to learn. Religion has a very good place in education at the moment.

I dont know, Theology and Rs have their merits.

What's Rs?
And theology has the problem of giving enough time to each religion. Not because of ill-intent on anyone, but simply because it's hard not to favor one more thanks to both teachers and pupils being slanted towards one side.

no, theology can use a religion to approach ethical questions.
Honestly, I attend a Christian school, no one is brainwashed by the chaplain. The fact is you underestimate kids. They are ableto think for themselves.

Norse wrote:

... In US public schools, should the following be permitted?

... 1. Teachers praying on groups of kids before lunch

... 2. Kids wearing shirts.

... 3. Teachers wearing Jesus

... 4. Teachers wearing shirts.

... 5. A student using school facilities

... 6. Pray for tragedy

... 7. A school

... 8. Kids wearing Jews

... 9. Teachers in hats.

...

1. That just isn't right
2. That is acceptable
3. hmmm...not quite sure what you mean here...but it sounds ok
4. This should be mandatory
5. Occasionally, this would be ok
6. No
7. yes
8. Again, not quite sure what you are asking...it actually sounds a little distasteful.
9. I see no problem here.

x 4.78

Napoleon Ier wrote:The fact is you underestimate kids. They are ableto think for themselves.

Jesus Camp.

unriggable wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:The fact is you underestimate kids. They are ableto think for themselves.

Jesus Camp.

Brings up some issues about a fairly small section of US society.
But discredits itself with rash and easily discounted idiocies it claims

i do actually think jesus camp is hitting on a portion of american society that is growing, as that message is filling the needs of a fair segment of the population. Likewise, there is a large growth of xianty in the youth culture, which means numbers and that type of thought may increase in the near future, out of marginalization.

got tonkaed wrote:i do actually think jesus camp is hitting on a portion of american society that is growing, as that message is filling the needs of a fair segment of the population. Likewise, there is a large growth of xianty in the youth culture, which means numbers and that type of thought may increase in the near future, out of marginalization.

There's nothing wrong with that though, just some take it too far.