• 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 .
reeatedly? Cildren?
If bullying is happening in a classroom, are you suggesting that the teacher should not espouse tolerance, but rather send the children home to talk with their parents; some of whom may be bullies themselves?

Excuse the fact that my typing skills sometimes leave something to be desired.

If there is a problem with discipline or behavior in the classroom, obviously the teacher should intervene. I have never said otherwise. I'm only saying it is not the job of school to teach morals or to preach to the students.
 
Excuse the fact that my typing skills sometimes leave something to be desired.

If there is a problem with discipline or behavior in the classroom, obviously the teacher should intervene. I have never said otherwise. I'm only saying it is not the job of school to teach morals or to preach to the students.

The knowledge students learn from mathematics, science, history and languages will amount to nothing if schools do not teach them moral values and respect for the rights of others as well.

Moral values, or ethics and respect for others, should be a major subject from kindergarten up to the college level.

Moral values involve the principles of knowing right from wrong, while respect for the rights of others is self-explanatory.
 
The knowledge students learn from mathematics, science, history and languages will amount to nothing if schools do not teach them moral values and respect for the rights of others as well.

Moral values, or ethics and respect for others, should be a major subject from kindergarten up to the college level.

Moral values involve the principles of knowing right from wrong, while respect for the rights of others is self-explanatory.

So you believe in state indoctrination and in the suppression of dissenting opinions. Your choice, not mine.
 
It's strength in numbers, lola. Why are you trying to isolate incidences of atheism? The above article + Richard Dawkins + the other top 24 atheists + you and Ikara running interference + God knows what else I have to dig up = A growing problem.

Do all atheists think alike?
 
So you believe in state indoctrination and in the suppression of dissenting opinions. Your choice, not mine.

Good grief, are you for real?
Schools provide problem solving processes for helping to make choices. thinking in a way that is clear and straight, not distorted; seeing many possibilities in a situation—shades of gray instead of black and white; the ability to reflect on our experience and to learn from it; and the ability to use a framework to make decisions when we genuinely don't know what to do in a hard case.
I would ask if you ever had a teacher who served as a positive role model, but I'm sure you simply looked in the mirror.
 
Good grief, are you for real?
Schools provide problem solving processes for helping to make choices. thinking in a way that is clear and straight, not distorted; seeing many possibilities in a situation—shades of gray instead of black and white; the ability to reflect on our experience and to learn from it; and the ability to use a framework to make decisions when we genuinely don't know what to do in a hard case.
I would ask if you ever had a teacher who served as a positive role model, but I'm sure you simply looked in the mirror.

I am for real. Are you?

You want school to teach morals? Trying to go the civilian religion route of Robespierre? Believe me, that ends in grief.

As for positive role models, I certainly wouldn't consider a teacher who decided to do my thinking for me and to force his or her morals on me as a role model. You on the other hand seem to have a greater need for strong and dominant authority figures. Your problem, not mine.
 
I am for real. Are you?

You want school to teach morals? Trying to go the civilian religion route of Robespierre? Believe me, that ends in grief.

As for positive role models, I certainly wouldn't consider a teacher who decided to do my thinking for me and to force his or her morals on me as a role model. You on the other hand seem to have a greater need for strong and dominant authority figures. Your problem, not mine.


Of course schools teach morality; i.e, if a child pushes another child down in the classroom, and an intelligent, caring teacher would explain the consequences.
When in college, did you listen to your professors? Did they help in forming your opinions?
Honestly, I think you are a troll.
 
Of course schools teach morality; i.e, if a child pushes another child down in the classroom, and an intelligent, caring teacher would explain the consequences.
When in college, did you listen to your professors? Did they help in forming your opinions?
Honestly, I think you are a troll.

Honestly, I think you don't think before you express yourself. You also seem to have trouble with reading. I have clearly and repeatedly indicated that teachers should of course maintain discipline in the classroom and prevent children from assaulting or bullying each other. That has nothing to do with what you propose; that teachers should foist a specific set of morals on their pupils and teach them what is morally right or wrong.
 
Honestly, I think you don't think before you express yourself. You also seem to have trouble with reading. I have clearly and repeatedly indicated that teachers should of course maintain discipline in the classroom and prevent children from assaulting or bullying each other. That has nothing to do with what you propose; that teachers should foist a specific set of morals on their pupils and teach them what is morally right or wrong.

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?
 
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?

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:
 
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?

We've gone over this already. You should read earlier posts before commenting.
 
The freedom of religion has prevented countless millions from being murdered and persecuted under the laws of the most powerful organizations of men. It is so important that it is a guaranteed right in our Constitution, while the "mandate to evolve" has put forth actions that have taken place in such wonderful locations as Darfur, Rwanda, Germany, the USSR, and Bosnia.


There is only one reply to such nonsense.



WRONG!!!!!!!
 
I do not consider science itself a threat to religion. I do, however, consider atheists presenting science a threat to religion. Does that make sense?


No, it does not make sense and it does show a basic ignorance of science
 
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.

Is this a joke? It would put them at a disadvantage to intentionally block their ability to learn about things that are not scientific. It will be harder for them to understand other people and other cultures if they have no concept of non-scientific things.

Do you not trust other people to think for themselves, such that you want to decide what they are allowed to learn and how they are supposed to think?

Man some of you on the left don't even try to make your oppressive ideology appear more tolerable. You're practically shining a light on your own underlying totalitarian desires.
 
Last edited:
I am for real. Are you?

You want school to teach morals? Trying to go the civilian religion route of Robespierre? Believe me, that ends in grief.

As for positive role models, I certainly wouldn't consider a teacher who decided to do my thinking for me and to force his or her morals on me as a role model.

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.
 
Last edited:
Is this a joke? It would put them at a disadvantage to intentionally block their ability to learn about things that are not scientific. It will be harder for them to understand other people and other cultures if they have no concept of non-scientific things.

Do you not trust other people to think for themselves, such that you want to decide what they are allowed to learn and how they are supposed to think?

Man some of you on the left don't even try to make your oppressive ideology appear more tolerable. You're practically shining a light on your own underlying totalitarian desires.

Pray tell. WHY does your deity require notice in a high school science class?
 
Is this a joke? It would put them at a disadvantage to intentionally block their ability to learn about things that are not scientific. It will be harder for them to understand other people and other cultures if they have no concept of non-scientific things.

Do you not trust other people to think for themselves, such that you want to decide what they are allowed to learn and how they are supposed to think?

Man some of you on the left don't even try to make your oppressive ideology appear more tolerable. You're practically shining a light on your own underlying totalitarian desires.

That's like saying you should discuss French in Math class.
 
The relevant posts in order

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.


Is this a joke? It would put them at a disadvantage to intentionally block their ability to learn about things that are not scientific. It will be harder for them to understand other people and other cultures if they have no concept of non-scientific things.

Do you not trust other people to think for themselves, such that you want to decide what they are allowed to learn and how they are supposed to think?

Man some of you on the left don't even try to make your oppressive ideology appear more tolerable. You're practically shining a light on your own underlying totalitarian desires.


Originally Posted by Somerville
Pray tell. WHY does your deity require notice in a high school science class?


I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to my comments.

I leave it to the commentariat to make a judgment
 
Is this a joke? It would put them at a disadvantage to intentionally block their ability to learn about things that are not scientific. It will be harder for them to understand other people and other cultures if they have no concept of non-scientific things.

Do you not trust other people to think for themselves, such that you want to decide what they are allowed to learn and how they are supposed to think?

Man some of you on the left don't even try to make your oppressive ideology appear more tolerable. You're practically shining a light on your own underlying totalitarian desires.

Children are not in school to think for themselves, they are there to learn. I want children to learn science in school and save the fairy tales for home. What are you afraid of? That they will learn to think their parents are idiots for believing in fairytales? That is not as bad as you think.
 
Children are not in school to think for themselves, they are there to learn.

You want them to learn without thinking? Tall order.

I want children to learn science in school and save the fairy tales for home.

So you're opposed to literature then.

What are you afraid of? That they will learn to think their parents are idiots for believing in fairytales? That is not as bad as you think.

I think what's idiotic is to proclaim that children shall learn scientific principles exclusively (without thinking). As though all fiction should be banned by the state.

There's a reason science and math are not the only subjects in school. Besides, we all know that even science and stats can be misconstrued. Kids need to be able to think critically, not just have scientific fact downloaded to their brains (as though that's even possible).
 
Last edited:
Children are not in school to think for themselves, they are there to learn. I want children to learn science in school and save the fairy tales for home. What are you afraid of? That they will learn to think their parents are idiots for believing in fairytales? That is not as bad as you think.

Who thinks for them? Is the teacher teaching a meme concept?
 
You are correct; however, in the past several years, I have had to be involved with several elders. It is has not be made very public, but there is a significant rise occurring. Elder residences are actually talking with the children of elders about this issue in attempt to stem the tide. It is quite embarrassing to have to converse with an elder concerning such matters! :blushing2

:rofl I can imagine. A lot of them are probably from a generation before there was widespread condom use.
 
Back
Top Bottom