• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

X Factor said:
You want to coerce, through laws, others to adhere to your brand of morals/ethics. It's no big deal, everyone wants that to an extent. Your morals inform your politics too, yet, for some reason, you don't think others who do the same thing as you should have the right to do it.
Click to expand...


No, I want the laws to enforce ethics that are supported by facts. Using ethics here lightly, since some people think that sexual positions or eating habits have to do with ethics. They don't. Why do you have to argue against things I'm not actually doing in order to oppose me? Why can't you argue against the things I'm really saying. Keep your religion out of law, out of government, and out of public institutions, the same way you wouldn't want some other religion doing. Anything you wouldn't be comfortable with Satanists enforcing in law or on society, you shouldn't be enforcing either.


That's a good yardstick for this. Any issue where you want society or law to reflect your religion, ask yourself "would I be okay being outvoted on this issue by Satanists?" If the answer is no, then religion shouldn't be a part of the issue.

ludin said:
Sorry we live in a free society where people are allowed to speak their own opinion. If you dont' want to hear what people say then go somewhere else they have a right to speak whatever they want as long as it doesn't cause physical damage to someone or someone's property.

Religious discrimination and bigotry is against the law did you know that?

If i choose to pray in public who are you to say otherwise? you are no one.

Religious bigotry a live and well.

You are allowed to believe what you want. what you don't get to do is restrict other people that believe differently just because you don't like it.
i think you have bigger personal issues if you find that someone praying to something you don't believe in offends you that much.

for someone who claims God doesn't exist you sure are offended by it a great deal. pretty much logical insanity.

i don't believe in a mythical non-existant God but at the same time i am offended by that same mythical non-existant God.
so how can you be offended by something you claim doesn't exist? logically this makes 0 sense.

i find it abhorrent that people like you claim to be tolerant and open minded but are the exact opposite of what you claim to be.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what most of these words mean. Especially "offended", "tolerant", "bigotry", or "free". Or "logic". These concepts seem beyond you. We'll do this one at a time, but I don't think we'll get very far.

If you want to fall to your knees on a street corner and pray, go ahead. Feel free. Shout it to the rooftops how much you love your religion. You'll look crazy to everyone else, but that's still your decision. Just don't crowd other people out of the street corner. That's the deal. You can use it how you like, but you have to share.

At no point am I trying to restrict anyone believing anything. I'll certainly tell you why what you believe is stupid and wrong. But that's why we're here on a debate forum. To discuss our ideas. And yours are wrong. And I can, will, and have many times proven why, to many people. Often they have ignored it. But you, like them, can continue to believe whatever you like. No one is trying to stop you.

The only thing you don't get to do is enforce your religion on the rest of us. You don't get to create the societal expectation that irreligious means lacking morality, you don't get to stuck religious rituals into public activity, you don't get to squash science or temper education because it surpasses the understanding of your bronze age myths. But you can still ignore all of that science and education and believe whatever nonsense you like. No one is trying to stop you and no one who associates with modern atheist or humanist movements is every going to.

As to offense, if stories about murdered children, slaughtered people, horrific torture, unabashed misogyny, slavery... all committed by a supposedly good and all-powerful god king don't offend you, then there is something wrong with you. People holding up these stories as a guide to proper living are incredibly evil. These are the people who throw acid in little girls' faces for not wearing Burkas, who murdered Matthew Sheppard, Toni Alston, Tyra Trent, Danny Vega, and Mark Carson, who teach their daughters that their only purpose in life is to submit to a man and bear children for him, who flew planes in the Twin Towers. This is serious evil. Despite your religious proclivities, you probably don't take those stories as real moral guides despite your emotional dependence on them, and so don't practice the evil they teach, but all three monotheistic religions demand that you kill your children if god tells you to. No person should EVER, for any reason, no matter what, kill their children. If you are not offended by the parables in monotheistic religion, that are supposed to guide everyone's life, you are mentally deficient.

But you misunderstand the offense. I'm not offended by god. There is no god. Just like there is no Loch Ness Monster, no Thor, and no Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the people who commit evil because they think that this god wants them to... they offend me. They should offend you. And you shouldn't be tolerant of evil actions. You should be tolerant of different opinions, and I am, though that certainly don't put them beyond reproach, criticism, or discussion, but I certainly wouldn't ever refuse to hire someone or hurt them because of their religion. I wouldn't distrust someone merely over their religious identity. I would based on how irrational they were, but not merely by belonging to a religion. I have friends, associates, and acquaintances of many different religions, but none are terribly serious about their religion. People who are very serious about religion tend to be people I can't rely on. I wouldn't mistrust you just because you say that you are a Christian (I assume that you are a Christian because most people who get angry about atheists criticizing religion on this forum are, but it wouldn't matter if you were a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or whatever), but if you think that snakes actually talk or that the world is 6000 years old, then I probably wouldn't desire your company. Just like I wouldn't want the company of people who think the world is flat or arrange their life according to the belief that they have been abducted by aliens.

Tolerance means judging people by their actions and not their identity. The actions of the religious are not to their credit. But if you will stop trying to force your religion into my life, we could live as neighbors without difficulty.
 
Paschendale said:
There is no such thing as practicing atheism. It's not a thing. It's just keeping your religion out of other people's lives. Have it in your own life all you like. It has nothing to do with offending. It has to do with rights. I have the right to order my life free from your religious ideas the same way you have the right to order your life based on them. So, I'm not really sure what you're describing as "discrimination." All you don't get to do is control other people's lives. Go to your church. Pray all you like. Conduct whatever rituals you want in your home. Rent a private establishment for a religious gathering. Wear religious garb wherever you go. Hold whatever discrimination you like in your heart, though you'll do your children a grave disservice if you pass it on to them.

So, what exactly are you not getting to do?
Click to expand...
One does practice atheism. You have incorrectly described this practice above, when you say you "have the right to order your life free from religious ideas". A correct practice would be that you have the right to order your life without respect to my religious ideas. The way you described your atheistic practice is discriminatory and incompatible with my rights, the way I described the practice of atheism is not discriminatory and is compatible with my rights.

This is because for us to share the same public space, we will have an equal right to practice our religion as we see fit. For you to require me to not freely practice my religion in public is bad enough, but you go further and ask me to practice your religion, that is to order my public life without respect to my religion.

Strait up discrimination and forced religious practice.
 
johndylan1 said:
One does practice atheism. You have incorrectly described this practice above, when you say you "have the right to order your life free from religious ideas". A correct practice would be that you have the right to order your life without respect to my religious ideas. The way you described your atheistic practice is discriminatory and incompatible with my rights, the way I described the practice of atheism is not discriminatory and is compatible with my rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you think the difference between those two things are. Give me some examples of what you think I'm trying to stop you from doing. I'll tell you what I want you to stop doing. I don't want laws preventing gay people from marrying because of your religious objections. I don't want laws preventing women from obtaining abortions because of your religious objections (there are non-religious objections and we can debate them, but they don't really hold up). I don't want stem cell research stopped because of your religious objections. I don't want schools prevented from teaching accurate science because of your religious objections. I don't want girls to be prevented from having the lives they want because of your religious objections. I don't want seven states to explicitly ban non-religious people from holding office. I don't want US foreign relations to be subject to your religious antipathy against Muslims. I don't want US environmental policy to be subject to myths about god not letting the world change.

I want to live my life without interference from religion. So what rights of yours are somehow being lost because you can't control how I live?

This is because for us to share the same public space, we will have an equal right to practice our religion as we see fit. For you to require me to not freely practice my religion in public is bad enough, but you go further and ask me to practice your religion, that is to order my public life without respect to my religion.
Click to expand...

In the previous post, I think I summed up the public square nicely, but I want to expound on it. Here's what I said: "If you want to fall to your knees on a street corner and pray, go ahead. Feel free. Shout it to the rooftops how much you love your religion. You'll look crazy to everyone else, but that's still your decision. Just don't crowd other people out of the street corner. That's the deal. You can use it how you like, but you have to share." But here's the rub. You are the majority. There are a lot more of you than there are of us. If you individually want to pray in the public square, you can. No one should force you out. But if you and a hundred other religious people want to take up the public square, individually pray on it, and keep others out, you can't do that. You have to share. That doesn't just apply to individuals, but to communities.

And as always, atheism is not religion. It is the lack thereof.

Lachean said:
Yeah? And bald is a hair color.
Click to expand...

RogueWarrior said:
Abstinence is a sex position
Click to expand...

See these examples if you're still confused.
 
Lachean said:
Yeah? And bald is a hair color.
Click to expand...

I've been reading and not signing in or posting lately, but I had to sign in to "like" this. Burst out with a cackle, I did. Bravo!
 
Alter2Ego said:
ALTER2EGO -to- CAPTAIN COURTESY:

Both cases affirmed that Atheism is Religion. In fact, even the newspapers picked up on the story in 2005, when the Wisconsin Federal Appeals Court granted the imprisoned atheist, James Kaufman, his Atheist Religious rights. Notice the quotation below. Focus on the portions that are bolded in red and in blue.


"Court Rules Atheism A Religion

Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he [Kaufman] wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
Court rules atheism a religion
​


Everything that I bolded in red is a direct quotation from the Wisconsin Court.
Click to expand...

No, you are absolutely wrong. As I said, the Courts have NEVER stated that atheism is defined as a religion. They HAVE said that for the purposes of the First Amendment, atheism is EQUIVALENT to religion. BIG difference. So, again, you are completely incorrect and are posting misinformation.
 
Alter2Ego said:
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.


In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself reject is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)



DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
Click to expand...

No - I'm not part of a religion because of something the Supreme Court decided.

Do I really have to call myself irreligious, here, just to make my lack of belief or uniformity with believers and religious concepts any more clear?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No - I'm not part of a religion because of something the Supreme Court decided.

Do I really have to call myself irreligious, here, just to make my lack of belief or uniformity with believers and religious concepts any more clear?
Click to expand...

I don't think that certain types of mad people will ever get it. They have managed to go through life without thinking so far why would they change now?
 
The real question is: How do atheists get tax exemption for getting together and talking about our ideology?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, you are absolutely wrong. As I said, the Courts have NEVER stated that atheism is defined as a religion. They HAVE said that for the purposes of the First Amendment, atheism is EQUIVALENT to religion. BIG difference. So, again, you are completely incorrect and are posting misinformation.
Click to expand...

"Equivalent" is what the thumpers really care about though. They want to bash atheism while defending religion by proving that they're both the same....brilliant!

Just like oppression via religiously inspired laws is somehow the same as atheists wanting to not allow religion to oppress them.

Really have to think long and hard to follow this crap "logic"
 
Amadeus said:
The real question is: How do atheists get tax exemption for getting together and talking about our ideology?
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe after we start building atheist "churches" we gather at every sunday and there are adverts all over the damn highways and door-to-door "missionary" work encouraging nonbelief, we can start calling it a religion.
 
chromium said:
Yeah maybe after we start building atheist "churches" we gather at every sunday and there are adverts all over the damn highways and door-to-door "missionary" work encouraging nonbelief, we can start calling it a religion.
Click to expand...

I would so join a Pastafarian church. Can you imagine how fun the people would be?

 
Paschendale said:
And as always, atheism is not religion. It is the lack thereof.

See these examples if you're still confused.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree.
Atheism is not the lack of religion.


Atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism and a belief in a god are mutually exclusive.

Is theism a religion? Well neither are atheism or deism.
Don't confuse these people more than they already are. That is just plain cruel. :2razz:
 
RabidAlpaca said:
As usual, Alter2ego isn't interested in facts. This is the stereotypical bi-weekly bickering session started by christians trying to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
Click to expand...

Political views and ethics spring from our beliefs about the world. Our beliefs about the world give rise to a personal morality.
Unbelief or non-belief lead to a personal morality based on unbelief.
Unbelievers vote their world view (ethics based on unbelief) onto Christians, all the while asking that we don't vote our moral and/or political views onto them.
It is hypocritical.
 
chromium said:
Yeah maybe after we start building atheist "churches" we gather at every sunday and there are adverts all over the damn highways and door-to-door "missionary" work encouraging nonbelief, we can start calling it a religion.
Click to expand...

They already exist. It's called the public school system, or the University. Except these folks meet every day. They don't need tax exemption, they are funded by the government.
 
Paschendale said:
I don't think you know what most of these words mean. Especially "offended", "tolerant", "bigotry", or "free". Or "logic". These concepts seem beyond you. We'll do this one at a time, but I don't think we'll get very far.
Click to expand...

your wrong because i say so is not an argument. so we will start with this one since you use this quite a bit.

If you want to fall to your knees on a street corner and pray, go ahead. Feel free. Shout it to the rooftops how much you love your religion. You'll look crazy to everyone else, but that's still your decision. Just don't crowd other people out of the street corner. That's the deal. You can use it how you like, but you have to share.
Click to expand...

who said anything about crowding people out of the street corner. no one this is a simple strawman fallacy so no argument there.
actually there won't be anyone think i am crazy as there are plenty of people that do pray and i am sure there would be a few join me if they felt compelled to do so.
unless you actually have proof that the majority of people would think i am crazy if i decided to say a prayer in public this is nothing more than your opinion which carries 0 weight.

At no point am I trying to restrict anyone believing anything. I'll certainly tell you why what you believe is stupid and wrong. But that's why we're here on a debate forum. To discuss our ideas. And yours are wrong. And I can, will, and have many times proven why, to many people. Often they have ignored it. But you, like them, can continue to believe whatever you like. No one is trying to stop you.
Click to expand...

yet again your wrong because i say your wrong is not an argument. you can't discuss idea's with someone when their base start off is yours are wrong. that is intollerance and the very opposite definition an open mind.

no you might have tried to force your opinion on people but they have their right to reject that opinion.
so far i haven't seen you actually prove anything just say i say you are wrong so you are. so lets continue.

The only thing you don't get to do is enforce your religion on the rest of us. You don't get to create the societal expectation that irreligious means lacking morality, you don't get to stuck religious rituals into public activity, you don't get to squash science or temper education because it surpasses the understanding of your bronze age myths. But you can still ignore all of that science and education and believe whatever nonsense you like. No one is trying to stop you and no one who associates with modern atheist or humanist movements is every going to.
Click to expand...

Equall you don't get to enforce your beliefs on the rest of everyone else either. I don't think i said that irreligious means lack of morality so that is a strawman and a non-argument. actually it depends on the public event and who is sponsoring it but yes it can be put into a public event the 1st amenedment protect that right.
and the ad hominem. again is a non-argument.

so far you are doing a very bad job of this.

actually modern atheists and humanist movements are trying to do exactly that. so far they have lost several key cases because they don't understand the 1st amendment.

also if you think that atheism isn't a religion then why are they trying to establish a preacher in the army as a humanist preacher? of course the navy reject this outright because it was the irony of all ironies. why are atheists now holding services in buildings? sounds like a religion to me.

religion also doens't have to mean a supreme being.

As to offense, if stories about murdered children, slaughtered people, horrific torture, unabashed misogyny, slavery... all committed by a supposedly good and all-powerful god king don't offend you, then there is something wrong with you. This is serious evil. Despite your religious proclivities, you probably don't take those stories as real moral guides despite your emotional dependence on them, and so don't practice the evil they teach, but all three monotheistic religions demand that you kill your children if god tells you to. No person should EVER, for any reason, no matter what, kill their children. If you are not offended by the parables in monotheistic religion, that are supposed to guide everyone's life, you are mentally deficient.
Click to expand...

If you understand the time and history of those events then you would realize that you are severly misinformed of the situation. It was not uncommon back then when you attacked a city or something of that nature that you killed all of the men and any boys that were not infants or so, and sometimes the children. why? because when those children grew up they could revolt against you in your own society.

while we considere it barbaric today in those times you didn't leave and enemy at your back while you were walking the other direction. you took the women and added it to your society to increase the DNA line. other times everyone was killed as a point and a show of force. you fought one battle to not have to fight 1000 other battles.

i am not emotional dependant on them another strawman. you just keep making stuff up that has nothing to do with what i said.
I am not offended at all because unlike you i understand the context. I have no idea about islam i am not islamic so trying to interwin one to justify the argument against others is well a fallacy in and of itself.

But you misunderstand the offense. I'm not offended by god. There is no god. Just like there is no Loch Ness Monster, no Thor, and no Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the people who commit evil because they think that this god wants them to... they offend me. They should offend you. And you shouldn't be tolerant of evil actions. You should be tolerant of different opinions, and I am, though that certainly don't put them beyond reproach, criticism, or discussion, but I certainly wouldn't ever refuse to hire someone or hurt them because of their religion. I wouldn't distrust someone merely over their religious identity. I would based on how irrational they were, but not merely by belonging to a religion. I have friends, associates, and acquaintances of many different religions, but none are terribly serious about their religion. People who are very serious about religion tend to be people I can't rely on.
Nope i am pretty sure i understand the offense just fine. No you are offended by religious people that worship God therefore you are offended by God something you say doesn't exist.

Those people 9/10 have mental issues so trying to project that onto other is well another fallacy.
i don't pretty simple.

you are not tolerant of other peoples opinions you have proven that in this post already.

Tolerance means judging people by their actions and not their identity. The actions of the religious are not to their credit. But if you will stop trying to force your religion into my life, we could live as neighbors without difficulty.
Click to expand...

If you stop trying to push your nonbelief on other people then the same can occur but you don't seem to be apt to do that as you have already stated.
you just say your wrong because i say your wrong and well there we have it. that is your entire argument.

you don't believe and think like i do so you are wrong. that is your stance you have admitted as much.
that is the very definition of intolerance and lack of open mind that you claim to be.

yes you do have a problem with religious people more so when they voice their opinion on matters.
You say you don't want religious views shoved in your face but yet have no problem doing the opposite of shoving your views in peoples face.

thank you. you have proved the points i made in my first post.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cable said:
Political views and ethics spring from our beliefs about the world. Our beliefs about the world give rise to a personal morality.
Unbelief or non-belief lead to a personal morality based on unbelief.
Unbelievers vote their world view (ethics based on unbelief) onto Christians, all the while asking that we don't vote our moral and/or political views onto them.
It is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I vote for a policy of considering facts and evidence and making responsible, logical decisions based off those factors. The religious say screw facts, screw evidence, we're going to do what an ancient book tells us no matter how much the evidence contradicts it.

Your faith in ancient texts written by desert nomads is not in any way, shape or form on the same level as making rational decisions based on logic and science.

Cable said:
They already exist. It's called the public school system, or the University. Except these folks meet every day. They don't need tax exemption, they are funded by the government.
Click to expand...

THIS! is what I'm talking about! You just equated a school, where kids learn to read, write, do math and learn about science, to being an atheist church. Holy ****ing ****. You're one of the "kids don't need math, science or literature, they should study the bible all day" kind of person, aren't you?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Incorrect. I vote for a policy of considering facts and evidence and making responsible, logical decisions based off those factors. The religious say screw facts, screw evidence, we're going to do what an ancient book tells us no matter how much the evidence contradicts it.
Your faith in ancient texts written by desert nomads is not in any way, shape or form on the same level as making rational decisions based on logic and science.

THIS! is what I'm talking about! You just equated a school, where kids learn to read, write, do math and learn about science, to being an atheist church. Holy ****ing ****. You're one of the "kids don't need math, science or literature, they should study the bible all day" kind of person, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Your name is fitting sir. But please relax a bit and consider the facts.

Christians do weigh the facts, but our paradigm is based on God, so the way we view those facts is influenced by our belief in God. This in a way similar to the way unbelievers are without consideration of God in their consideration of the facts.
This means we weigh the same facts you do, but have a larger picture of reality.

Regarding schools. They still teach reading, writing and math? You wouldn't know it by the kids they graduate for the most part. But they do all know that gay is ok, polar bears are in trouble because the earth is warming, etc...
And a conservative in school today is treated like gays used to be. Abnormal and to be looked down on.
Those schools?
I would be thrilled if they just taught reading, writing, and math, as would other Christian families.
 
Cable said:
Your name is fitting sir. But please relax a bit and consider the facts.

Christians do weigh the facts, but our paradigm is based on God, so the way we view those facts is influenced by our belief in God. This in a way similar to the way unbelievers are without consideration of God in their consideration of the facts.
This means we weigh the same facts you do, but have a larger picture of reality.

Regarding schools. They still teach reading, writing and math? You wouldn't know it by the kids they graduate for the most part. But they do all know that gay is ok, polar bears are in trouble because the earth is warming, etc...
And a conservative in school today is treated like gays used to be. Abnormal and to be looked down on.
Those schools?
I would be thrilled if they just taught reading, writing, and math, as would other Christian families.
Click to expand...



I like you how you cut science out of there. You may have wasted your education, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. No, school is not a gay indoctrination camp, and you can cry, bitch and moan all you want, you won't be getting rid of science in schools. Considering you reject science and replace it with an ancient text, no, you do not have a better picture of reality than people who open themselves up to all knowledge.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I like you how you cut science out of there. You may have wasted your education, but that doesn't mean everyone else is. No, school is not a gay indoctrination camp, and you can cry, bitch and moan all you want, you won't be getting rid of science in schools. Considering you reject science and replace it with an ancient text, no, you do not have a better picture of reality than people who open themselves up to all knowledge.
Click to expand...

I notice you latch onto an unimportant point as the be all end all of my post and conveniently ignore the meat of it.
I have no problem with Science in the schools what so ever.
I do have a problem with the rest of it, and not devoting time to reading, writing, math, and the sciences. You'd be hard pressed to show the schools as a success in anything other than a liberal indoctrination camp, limiting God as much as possible while allowing all kinds of other stuff that has nothing to do with the 4 things above.
I am not uneducated, but luckily I am primarily self-educated, and went to school in a time where the emphasis was more on the big 4.
I know you don't have an answer to my post in any real way, but I appreciate the opportunity to illustrate the failings of the U.S. school system and the liberal take-over of this. It was a really good plan.
The problem is, conservatives and believers in general are born every day. You won't educate this out of people. Your only real gain will be to sway the less than critical thinking masses. Which is a pretty good win for unbelievers if you think about it.
Rest easy RA, it will take some time for this issue to turn around. It will only happen when the failures of the schools really starts to come home. Ah, maybe you should be concerned, as this is probably going to happen in the next decade.
 
Cable said:
I notice you latch onto an unimportant point as the be all end all of my post and conveniently ignore the meat of it.
I have no problem with Science in the schools what so ever.
I do have a problem with the rest of it, and not devoting time to reading, writing, math, and the sciences. You'd be hard pressed to show the schools as a success in anything other than a liberal indoctrination camp, limiting God as much as possible while allowing all kinds of other stuff that has nothing to do with the 4 things above.
I am not uneducated, but luckily I am primarily self-educated, and went to school in a time where the emphasis was more on the big 4.
I know you don't have an answer to my post in any real way, but I appreciate the opportunity to illustrate the failings of the U.S. school system and the liberal take-over of this. It was a really good plan.
The problem is, conservatives and believers in general are born every day. You won't educate this out of people. Your only real gain will be to sway the less than critical thinking masses. Which is a pretty good win for unbelievers if you think about it.
Rest easy RA, it will take some time for this issue to turn around. It will only happen when the failures of the schools really starts to come home. Ah, maybe you should be concerned, as this is probably going to happen in the next decade.
Click to expand...

So because you can't peddle your religion to school children it's an atheist liberal bastion for religion hating? Christ you people always play the victim.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So because you can't peddle your religion to school children it's an atheist liberal bastion for religion hating? Christ you people always play the victim.
Click to expand...

Aren't you liberals the ones crying about not allowing any Godly influence in our societies? I'm just stating the facts. We have any number of lawsuits in progress against the schools for unduly limiting faith items in the schools.
It's just that the liberals want their cake and eat it too, but Christians are not foolish about all this.

I noticed your signature. It must really tweak you that Christ is our King and High Priest. ?
 
Cable said:
I notice you latch onto an unimportant point as the be all end all of my post and conveniently ignore the meat of it.
I have no problem with Science in the schools what so ever.
I do have a problem with the rest of it, and not devoting time to reading, writing, math, and the sciences. You'd be hard pressed to show the schools as a success in anything other than a liberal indoctrination camp, limiting God as much as possible while allowing all kinds of other stuff that has nothing to do with the 4 things above.
I am not uneducated, but luckily I am primarily self-educated, and went to school in a time where the emphasis was more on the big 4.
I know you don't have an answer to my post in any real way, but I appreciate the opportunity to illustrate the failings of the U.S. school system and the liberal take-over of this. It was a really good plan.
The problem is, conservatives and believers in general are born every day. You won't educate this out of people. Your only real gain will be to sway the less than critical thinking masses. Which is a pretty good win for unbelievers if you think about it.
Rest easy RA, it will take some time for this issue to turn around. It will only happen when the failures of the schools really starts to come home. Ah, maybe you should be concerned, as this is probably going to happen in the next decade.
Click to expand...
Disingenuous post
Mixing and Matching schools mediocre/weak performance in the '4', with the religion issue for the purpose bashing them altogether. Making schools better in the '4' doesnt have to do with god.
In fact, letting/Devoting time to god would take away from time for the '4'.
It's not just general religion/god you're whining about, it's YOUR 'god'.

And conservatives/believers are Not "born every day" they are Indocrinated/Brainwashed every day Thankfully without the help/waste of taking any time away from school learning. No one is born knowing about Christ or the NT.

What you [95%] believe has Nothing to do with reality and everything to do with where you were born.
If you were born in Istanbul or Riyadh, there's a 98% chance you're going to be Muslim.
In Delhi, Hindu.
In Tel Aviv, Jewish
In Bangkok, Buddhist.
In most of America, Christian.
IOW, Religion has just about -0- to do with the reality of a/any god, and almost everything to do with the Geographical/cultural accident of birth/indoctrination.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Disingenuous post
Mixing and Matching schools mediocre/weak performance in the '4', with the religion issue for the purpose bashing them altogether. Making schools better in the '4' doesnt have to do with god.
In fact, letting/Devoting time to god would take away from time for the '4'.

And of course, it's not just general religion/god you're whining about, it's YOUR 'god'.

And conservatives/believers are Not "born every day" they are Indocrinated/Brainwashed every day Thankfully without the help/waste of taking any time away from school learning.

What you [95%] believe has Nothing to do with reality and everything to do with where you were born.
If you were born in Istanbul or Riyadh, there's a 98% chance you're going to be Muslim.
In Delhi, Hindu.
In Tel Aviv, Jewish
In Bangkok, Buddhist.
In most of America, Christian.
IOW, Religion has just about -0- to do with the reality of a/any god, and almost everything to do with the Geographical/cultural accident of birth.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said, is it? I said the big 4 were being back-burnered in favor of LIBERAL indoctrination. I did not suggest at any point that the schools should make more time for God. Just the opposite. I indicated they should make more time for the big 4.

There is but one God.

I was raised by atheist liberals. Odd that I turned out to be a conservative Christian. This seems to fly in the face of your assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom