• 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 .
MoSurveyor said:
Atheists are feverish in their attempts?!? Sorry, but that deserves a :lamo
Click to expand...
You mean that deserves a feverish :lamo

MoSurveyor said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?
Click to expand...

Correct, it does not support atheism or religion. It does not examine the question of theism in any way.
 
DVSentinel said:
Where did I say it was? As to your second part, I've addressed that several times elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Here:

DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Are you implying that religion is a hindrance that we need to evolve from?

Also, there can be no "mandate to evolve."
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Also, the main reason for that, is the Rights refusal to accept them, too.
 
Dooble said:
Do you believe science does nothing to support atheism?
Click to expand...

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.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Doesn't matter. Also, the main reason for that, is the Rights refusal to accept them, too.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Artevelde said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seems repetitive; however, :applaud:bravo::good_job::bravo:
 
DVSentinel said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
:confused:
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :eek:
 
DVSentinel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sadly there is no scientific evidence of God and science would be a sham if they even mentioned God. Leave the fairytales for bedtime stories, and let our children learn only what science has learned. Otherwise you are putting them at a terrible disadvantage in a competitive world.
 
Last edited:
AuntiE said:
:confused:

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. :eek:
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's not nearly the same level as teen/20s STD levels. I'm pretty sure that is the highest age group for STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
 
Redress said:
There is a difference between teaching that something exists and teaching that something is wrong.
Click to expand...

It actually is how it is taught not that it is taught. Remember the phrases "presentation if everything" and the one relating to perception.
 
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...

Could you provide documentation that "religious" are against teaching about "physically and verbally abusing their classmates"? Your contention is only "religious" kids commit acts of bullying?
 
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...

:dito::good_job:
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really, I see the left and it's tendency towards government control and their push towards "equal" results meaning actual being equal. They are the greater threat. But then, one does not try to fight a two front war if it is unnecessary. Also, at present, in my opinion, there is no unified right or a particular issue/trend, other than doing almost nothing, from those who are called the right. I am very much against corporatism also, just if given only the option of corporatism or socialism, I would chose corporatism. But my preference would be neither, and at present, the "right" are allies of convenience against the socialism of the left.
 
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...

Are you unaware of the fact every school has standards of behavior which are given out at the beginning of every school year to both students and parents? Are you unaware that "home room teachers" go over these rules with students? Are you unaware that the teachers go over these rules with parents and both parents and students are required to sign a copy of the rules for entry into the student's file?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom