- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Good one! :lol:"Mandate to Evolve"? Shouldn't we get the License to Mutate first?
Good one! :lol:"Mandate to Evolve"? Shouldn't we get the License to Mutate first?
You mean that deserves a feverish :lamoAtheists are feverish in their attempts?!? Sorry, but that deserves a :lamo
I can think of lots of reasons why atheists would LOVE to present science to religious children. "THIS is how the Universe works" (leaving no question in religious children's minds that this teacher believes there is absolutely ZERO room for God in the "real world"). God doesn't even have to be mentioned in this case.The experiments on abiogenesis is science and has nothing to do with religion - or evolution for that matter. I can think of no good reason for any textbook or teacher to broach the subject of religion in science class. That's just fear mongering.
With atheism left out.Abiogenesis and Evolution are two separate areas of study. Both should be included in a science text book...
With atheism left out.
How is homosexuality harmful to our society? And, no, normal sexual impulses include homosexual behaviors (see: Nature).
With atheism left out.
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?Atheism is not a part of either field.
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?
Where did I say it was? As to your second part, I've addressed that several times elsewhere.
I don't hate anyone other than those who's actions are harmful to others. [...] Hatred has nothing to do with it, other than most homosexuals are leftist, but then that is hate for their action which are harmful to our society and the human race, not their sexuality.
Here:
Reread it, I am saying that leftism is harmful to society and the only harm done by homosexuality is that they trend towards being leftist.
I'm one of those old-fashioned types who believes schools should teach children to read, write, mathematics, science, history, ... But I realize all that is optional nowadays.
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?
Doesn't matter. Also, the main reason for that, is the Rights refusal to accept them, too.
As I figured, you are really rather selective in what legal things schools should teach children are OK. Why should your selection prevail?
Maybe schools should try to teach children the essential skills they need. That seems to be pretty much of a challenge as it is. Leave the education of morals up to their parents, family, friends, etc.
Does the reason why the trend left in anyway reduce the negative affects of the left? I don't care if their reason is being homosexual or the complete retardation of their logic center (as seen in socialist/communist), left is still bad. So because some on the right don't accept them, that is a good excuse to totally destroy the economy and enslave everyone to a communal idea instead of individual achievement and responsibility?
I think the schools should remain neutral on such issues. They have enough to worry about with teaching academics. Our public school system has some SERIOUS issues. I've heard that the high school drop out rate is nearing 30%. I do believe that in depth sex education should happen in health class though.
I believe that science is the seeking understanding of how God structured and created the Universe. Science gives us a greater understanding of God and since mankind is the child of God, just as a child grows and learns, mankind grows and learns. As a species we just call that evolution and science.
If your definition of "in depth sex education" is the practice of safe and responsible activities, yes. "In depth" must give a thorough grounding in potential health risks by not utilizing available means to prevent the transmission of STDs. As an aside, we should probably be going to elder living residences and providing the same type education as there is a rise in STDs among elders with the advent of medications for men.
There is a difference between teaching that something exists and teaching that something is wrong.
I cannot understand why the 'religious' are so against teaching kids that physically and verbally abusing their classmates is not acceptable. For those who are, or claim to be, Christian, it does seem that far too many fail to understand a central precept of their particular faith.
But no one is suggesting not to punish a child for unruly or abusive behaviors in school. I'm saying that there shouldn't be a segment of the school day devoted to teaching how wrong it is. That is not the purpose of school. The schools just don't have the time to focus on social issues.
Would you expect them to join the side that is, traditionally been, so anti-homosexual? But, I see you want to just make generalized ad homs on the Left. So I'll leave you to that.
And sorry to burst your bubble, the Left and Right have both, essentially, destroyed the economy.
"Teaching" tolerance means instructing students as to acceptable behaviour. One could see your response as "Wait until something bad happens and then punish the perpetrator(s)." That is a bit of locking the stables after the horses have run away. It is far better to explain acceptable behaviour before bad things happen. If a student's beliefs cause them to reject friendship with another student who is seen as 'unclean' - fine, but those beliefs should not be allowed to cause physical or emotional harm to the other student. Tolerance should be seen as accepting the existence of others, particularly LGBT, nothing more.
Those of one group don't have to like those others but they at the same time cannot be allowed to harm the others. Sometimes this must be taught to students, particularly when they are hearing bigotry and prejudice at home