• 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 .
ernst barkmann said:
government is not here to make us moral or immoral, becuase government is composed of people who have their own set of values.
Click to expand...

So does that mean you agree government has no say in morality issues like same-sex marriage?
 
Grand Mal said:
'wish to believe', is that like deciding how to feel? And as for the people who 'don't believe that', their concerns have been heard, listened to and made the law of the land. Recently, it's been brought up that maybe the concerns of a few shouldn't be the law of the land and this has caused all the moral outrage. Do you think the state has the right to 'mandate' morality?
Click to expand...

as i stated government is not here to make us moral or immoral, if it had that power it could decide for the people ,eating ,drinking, smoking, language usage, dress.
 
Grand Mal said:
So does that mean you agree government has no say in morality issues like same-sex marriage?
Click to expand...


i am an not against gays being married, i am against government track record of bring the issue farther in the arena of all the people where it has been made legal.

government has no business in marriage at all, it not a power of government...i am against force used on the people.....who have committed no crime.
 
DVSentinel said:
No. Because those portions that are fictional can be shown to be fictional. However, the bible has not been proven to be fictional and archeology continues to prove more and more of it.
Click to expand...

I do not believe you are reading papers from real archaeologists if you actually believe your words are true.

Very little before the 11th C. BCE has been found to fit the archaeology, that would include the creation of the earth, Tower of Babel, Noah, Abraham and the Exodus from Egypt. Although the city of Jericho did exist near the supposed time of Joshua, it is a bit difficult to date which destruction period would fit the Bible - the city, one of the oldest known was attacked and destroyed multiple times. The best scholarly opinions today state that the ruins of the city inspired the writing of the tale.

It is only about the 11th C BCE that archaeology begins to provide confirmation for SOME of the biblical stories.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
i am an not against gays being married, i am against government track record of bring the issue farther in the arena of all the people where it has been made legal.

government has no business in marriage at all, it not a power of government...i am against force used on the people.....who have committed no crime.
Click to expand...

Ah. I misunderstood.
 
bush-hand-holding-saudi-queen.jpg that is a man date








Boo Radley said:
Show me this mandate. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
That's it. That must be what he was talking about! :lamo
Click to expand...

And looking at the smiles, a person can guess who was going to be giving and receiving later that night
 
So, we have another troll thread by doodle. Very nice.

Utter lunacy because evolution occurs regardless of religion, there needn't be a mandate, that is similar to mandating high tide, or sun rise.

Freedom of religion is placed in absolutely no jeopardy by evolution. If it is than it will be lost because you can't stop progress. But I frankly don't see how the two are connected.

:shrug:
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is the idea that homosexuality is normal and good,nothing wrong with it.........and thats ok for people who wish to believe that way.

however there are people who dont believe that, and their concerns are not being heard, and listened to, and overruled.
Click to expand...

Their concerns should be over ruled, out isn't their concern that gay people exist. The concerns are ridiculous, what are they? I have so far heard, God will smite us, poppycock. Everybody will turn gay, how much exposure to gay people do you need to have before you turn gay? If you say any you are gay, you never were straight. Homosexuality isn't a disease you catch. And the last argument, most ridiculous of all, there will be a decrease in population, again if theonly thing keeping you out of your own locker room is that only opposites can marry, you aren't straight and you never were.

These opinion should be over ruled, they have been proven wrong. Someone who insists that the earth is flat doesn't really get a say in science. Those opinions are overruled because they are backward. Your concerns were heard and finally being dismissed because they are so ridiculous they border on insanity. Listening to people say backward ideas and false concepts is regression. Things only ever move forward.

So the "gay agenda" is progress. You can't stop progress. The tighter you cling to uneducated rhetoric the faster the world will progress around you.

There is no gay agenda, there is the battle for equality, based on your plea that the people who were listened to for centuries about marriage and homosexuality continue to be listened to really shows that you actually believe you are superior and saying that an oppressed people should continue to be oppressed while we sort out the irrational fears of people who dream up the "gay agenda". Really shows you are not at all willing to consider giving up your supremacy. We have to team up against this crap, its the only way to insure that this supremacy is crushed, it's the only thing that stands in the way of the pursuit of happiness.

What on earth us any kind of good reason to not let gay people get married, and please don't post any of the ignorant **** that I already addressed.
 
ernst barkmann said:
whether someone teaches their children to be a bigot or not...its not ours or anyone's else business to teach them differently, ..you and government are not the parents of the child..when did children become the property of the state.

government is not here to make us moral or immoral, becuase government is composed of people who have their own set of values.

i am not for government teaching anyone to be against anyone, but in the same breath i not for government telling people they WILL learn XYZ.

a person's behavior is not yours or government's affair, if that person has committed no crime...........you and government want to shape people to your liking....and thats not right.
Click to expand...

LOL All laws are made to control peoples behavior. What planet do you live on? Anti-social behavior like bigotry does not have to be respected or maintained. You could say the same about polygamists, pedophiles, or any number creeps that society has shunned.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL All laws are made to control peoples behavior. What planet do you live on? Anti-social behavior like bigotry does not have to be respected or maintained. You could say the same about polygamists, pedophiles, or any number creeps that society has shunned.
Click to expand...

and thats what i am talking about, there is no authority in the constitution on a federal or state to dictate to the people.

when did constitutions give government such authority.
 
CLAX1911 said:
What on earth us any kind of good reason to not let gay people get married, and please don't post any of the ignorant **** that I already addressed.
Click to expand...

i have stated i dont care if gays marry ....this is what i dont like...the public school part...i am always against government using force on people who have done nothing.

How same-sex "marriage" affects Massachusetts
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
LOL All laws are made to control peoples behavior. What planet do you live on? Anti-social behavior like bigotry does not have to be respected or maintained. You could say the same about polygamists, pedophiles, or any number creeps that society has shunned.
Click to expand...

if someone is a bigot, racist, or what ever they believe ,feel towards other people.......its not your business.......if they take action against another person then its a problem for government, but until they do ,you and government have no authority to shape them into a mold you like.
 
lolabird said:
You certainly are a fan of exaggerated hyperbole, aren't you.
I never proposed that teachers should impose their set of morals on their pupils. However, if you really do possess a PhD, surely even you can comprehend that a teacher's classroom actions have an ability to leave an indelible impression on young children.
If you believe teachers should prevent children from assaulting one another, wouldn't it follow that a caring, compassionate teacher would explain the ramifications and hopefully the children would learn a moral lesson?
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of hyperbole. I am a fan of logical thinking. If you go back and read what you wrote then you will see that you DID advocate teachers teaching morality. I think they should teach their subject matter. Stopping pupims from assaulting or bullying each other is not the same as teaching them morals. There are other settings for that.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL All laws are made to control peoples behavior. What planet do you live on? Anti-social behavior like bigotry does not have to be respected or maintained. You could say the same about polygamists, pedophiles, or any number creeps that society has shunned.
Click to expand...

So you feel that the state should police people's thinking?
 
iguanaman said:
If only that were true but history tells us that bigotry of all kinds does not lend itself to voluntary abolition. Just look at the 100 years that the blacks waited and it STILL took a Constitutional amendment and Federal enforcement to end segregation. Bigotry is passed on through parents and it is only common sense that schools need to play a role in opposing bigotry.
Did you think that schools teaching that segregation of blacks was wrong were "forcing things on people" too?
Click to expand...

You are confusing thoughts, opinions and mentalities (i.e. bigotry) with actions and policies.
 
ForcedAppeal said:
Is teaching students that cheating is wrong and why it is wrong 'forcing morals on you or yours?
(Of course they should know this already, but as it applies to a classroom setting should still be discussed in class and thereby constitute a lesson in morals)

My point is that, as usual, it's not so easy to generalize and say 'no morals should be taught in school'.

Of course nobody wants the more nuanced morals taught as if there is a right or wrong (ex. abortion,gun rights,etc.etc) but SOME morals are appropriately discussed (and again, this constitutes a lesson) in a classroom setting.

Parents have the home and their places of worship to discuss other moral matters in a more deep and nuanced manner.
Click to expand...

Cheating is a form of indiscipline, not a question of morality (unless you are referring to "cheating" in a marital context, which I presume you are not). It is a breach of the rules and therefore shouldn't be tolerated.

If you were to read the thread you would see that the people I react against DO indeed advocate the teaching of what you refer to as "the more nuanced morals".
 
Dooble said:
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.
Click to expand...
Talk about feverish! :lamo The Conspiracy Theory section is down the hall and to the right.
 
AuntiE said:
Not a single year did I not receive a copy of such standards. Further I had to sign a copy as well as my progeny.
Click to expand...
Obviously not a universal practice.

But I still have to wonder why people are so against tolerance.
 
Somerville said:
Nope. That is why I put the quote marks around the word "religious". A rather common, although mostly amongst those less than 40, to indicate an ironical take on the word or phrase with the single quote marks - also called "scare quotes". In this instance it should be read as stating, "Some of those Americans who call themselves religious" - see? Much easier to use the scare quotes but as I type, I realise that the majority of posters here are not under the age of 40 :2razz:
Click to expand...
I'm not even close to being under 40 and I use quote marks quite often, including the way you just did. Maybe it's a "Liberal" thing? ;)
 
ernst barkmann said:
i mean the government with an agenda.....a student lead agenda, is not going change the shape of the world.

i want the federal government out of our schools, becuase its unconstitutional for them to be there.....education is not in the constitution
Click to expand...

Do you really want the government to take away its funding?
 
Artevelde said:
I'm not a fan of hyperbole. I am a fan of logical thinking. If you go back and read what you wrote then you will see that you DID advocate teachers teaching morality. I think they should teach their subject matter. Stopping pupims from assaulting or bullying each other is not the same as teaching them morals. There are other settings for that.
Click to expand...

You are incorrigible.
What are pupims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom