• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Based upon the copious number of recent posts representing a very knuckle-dragging, unintelligent, and superstitious interpretation of Christianity, I would say it is rather obvious that people have freedom of religion. Based upon the responses, I would say a good many people have evolved beyond that very limited understanding of the world around them. As such, there is no mutually exclusive dichotomy here.

The world has always been filled with unenlightened individuals with little understanding of the world about them and who are filled with such fear of anything different that they latch on to fundamentalist dogma that limits this world in such a way as to simplify it down to their level of understanding. Fundies are like the children who find comfort from rigid systems with cut and dried rules for behavior that are never questioned and who are fearful of anything ambiguous or changing. Heck -- we are fighting a war of ideas against exactly such unenlightened people who wish their particular religion to have a stranglehold on all human civilization. The world will always be filled with such people, so it really isn't a matter of their evolving or dying, but the way others who are not so unenlightened deal with them.


If there is any "evolve or die" involved, it works the other way. If people of reason do not evolve a strategy to deal with the Neanderthals, it will be the latter who win out.
 
Redress said:
If you teach your child that evolution is wrong based on your religion, should schools not teach evolution?
Click to expand...

Hey Ernst, I have asked this question a couple different ways here and you keep running from it. How about answering the question.
 
Redress said:
It is not quite that simple. For example, teaching that slavery or naziism is wrong is pretty safe. Note that I have not suggested schools should teach that homosexuality is morally OK. It is however just fine to teach that it exists.
Click to expand...

I am by no means an adherent of Nazism, but why should schools teach children that Nazism is "wrong"? They should teach them the historical facts. They can draw their own conclusions. If one were to follow yor logic, they would also have to teach that Communism is wrong and a whole host of other things too. Let schools teach the facts, not what is wrong or right.
 
Gardener said:
Based upon the copious number of recent posts representing a very knuckle-dragging, unintelligent, and superstitious interpretation of Christianity, I would say it is rather obvious that people have freedom of religion. Based upon the responses, I would say a good many people have evolved beyond that very limited understanding of the world around them. As such, there is no mutually exclusive dichotomy here.

The world has always been filled with unenlightened individuals with little understanding of the world about them and who are filled with such fear of anything different that they latch on to fundamentalist dogma that limits this world in such a way as to simplify it down to their level of understanding. Fundies are like the children who find comfort from rigid systems with cut and dried rules for behavior that are never questioned and who are fearful of anything ambiguous or changing. Heck -- we are fighting a war of ideas against exactly such unenlightened people who wish their particular religion to have a stranglehold on all human civilization. The world will always be filled with such people, so it really isn't a matter of their evolving or dying, but the way others who are not so unenlightened deal with them.


If there is any "evolve or die" involved, it works the other way. If people of reason do not evolve a strategy to deal with the Neanderthals, it will be the latter who win out.
Click to expand...

I don't know you personally and therefore cannot judge you (not really interested in that anyway), but on the whole it's a pretty safe bet to say that people who describe themselves as "enlightened" and others as "unenlightened" tend to be among the most narrow-minded and intolerant people around.
 
Artevelde said:
So they should teach children to tolerate everything that is legal, including prostitution, gambling, smoking, etc. wherever this is legal? And they should teach children to tolerate polygamy in countries where that is legal?
Click to expand...
You should look up the concept of tolerance because it's clear from your post that you don't understand it.
 
Redress said:
Hey Ernst, I have asked this question a couple different ways here and you keep running from it. How about answering the question.
Click to expand...

Well, the creationists do continue their battle with reality but I think Ernst would promote the "critical thinking" approach on the evolution question.
 
Redress said:
It is not quite that simple. For example, teaching that slavery or naziism is wrong is pretty safe. Note that I have not suggested schools should teach that homosexuality is morally OK. It is however just fine to teach that it exists.
Click to expand...

I think just exposing the kids to the facts, most of them would realize that it's wrong without someone actually saying "it's wrong." OTH, I personally really don't have a problem with them saying something like that is wrong.

I think that things like personal sexuality are not necessary and shouldn't fall under curriculum, unless it's mentioned during a sex education class, and then should be approached with neutrality. Sex education class should focus more on the options of protection, responsibility, results of irresponsible sex, etc.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You should look up the concept of tolerance because it's clear from your post that you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MoSurveyor said:
You should look up the concept of tolerance because it's clear from your post that you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

It's clear from your reactions when confronted with some logic that to you tolerance extends to those things that you personally find tolerable.
 
Fisher said:
Don't know--California has far more households in poverty than any poor religious state and they have outlawed God.
Click to expand...

How do you outlaw god?
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "teaching them?" I would think that punishment for such things would be teaching them that it's unacceptable behavior. That is not the purpose of school. That is the role of parents.
 
ChrisL said:
What do you mean by "teaching them?" I would think that punishment for such things would be teaching them that it's unacceptable behavior. That is not the purpose of school. That is the role of parents.
Click to expand...

Punishment is teaching. It is called negative reinforcement.
 
Redress said:
How do you outlaw god?
Click to expand...

He must pray to a very wimpy god, easily pushed around.

Since Jesus instructed His followers to not be like play actors praying to be seen, but to simply go behind closed doors and pray silently in private, it appears to be a different god than the one Jesus represented. His God is much bigger than that.
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who exactly has been talking about physically and verbally abusing classmates?
 
Redress said:
Punishment is teaching. It is called negative reinforcement.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fisher said:
Don't know--California has far more households in poverty than any poor religious state and they have outlawed God.
Click to expand...



Nice joke. CALIFORNIA HAS OUTLAWED GOD! WOW! When did that happen?

California has far more people than any other state and therefore may have more people living in poverty, however a better comparison is the percent of a state's population living in poverty.

The 10 poorest states

Mississippi Louisiana New Mexico Alabama Texas Arkansas Oklahoma West Virginia Arizona South Carolina

What do they have in common? A high percentage of population holding religious beliefs and control by one political party
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is over 1000 hours in the average school year. Suggesting a few minutes to a couple hours cannot be spared is pretty silly, especially considering some of the things time is spent on(art, music, gym and various fun activities for example).
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly! :thumbs:
 
ChrisL said:
What do you mean by "teaching them?" I would think that punishment for such things would be teaching them that it's unacceptable behavior. That is not the purpose of school. That is the role of parents.
Click to expand...

"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
 
Artevelde said:
It's clear from your reactions when confronted with some logic that to you tolerance extends to those things that you personally find tolerable.
Click to expand...
Tolerance extends to other people, not concepts of morality. Your ignorance of tolerance is still showing.
 
Somerville said:
"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
Click to expand...

Why "particularly" this one group? Why are you so obsessed with homosexuality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom