• 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!

US states mull laws allowing religion in science class

faithful_servant said:
How is the State interfering with the Church in this case??
Click to expand...

The proposed law would violate the first amendment's "establishment clause" and violate the "captive audience doctrine".
 
faithful_servant said:
...and another person with no understanding of what the 1st Amendment means...
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove that you understand what the first amendment means. :roll:
 
Excon said:
This is just one reason why we need standardized education.

If you want to teach creationism in Sunday schools, great, but it does not belong in primary or secondary education.
Click to expand...

Abusing childrens' minds by indoctrinating them in Sunday Schools is not "great". The damage may last longer than physical abuse.
 
Sweden said:
Abusing childrens' minds by indoctrinating them in Sunday Schools is not "great". The damage may last longer than physical abuse.
Click to expand...

That is not your choice to make for everyone else.
 
Moot said:
You have yet to prove that you understand what the first amendment means. :roll:
Click to expand...

Read the Danbury letters and you'll see that the issue that Pres. Jefferson was responding to was one of the gov't trying to interfere with the Church. That "wall of separation" that your ilk likes to take out of context was a wall intended to keep the gov't out of the church and that was ALL. The 1st Amendment was a protection against a Fed. sponsored DENOMINATION, not a closed door to the influence of the Church as whole. Had that been the case, then we wouldn't have things like opening every session of Congress with prayer, having chapels in Fed. buildings, having Chaplains for both the House and the Senate, etc. Study the language used when the Constitution was written and you'll see that the term "religion" was FAR more synonymous with "denomination" than how we think of it today. Study the writings of the FFs IN CONTEXT (yes, there's lot's of stuff out there taken out of context that people use to oppose this idea) and you'll see men who felt that the Church was critical, but that the choice of which denomination (or "religion" as was common term used) was up to the people themselves. This flawed idea that the 1st was supposed to keep the Church out of the gov't would be laughable to the FFs.
 
Excon said:
That is not your choice to make for everyone else.
Click to expand...


It is our collective democratic choice to make physical abuse of children a criminal offence. And we (not me alone) should apply the same sanctions to mental abuse.
 
Sweden said:
It is our collective democratic choice to make physical abuse of children a criminal offence. And we (not me alone) should apply the same sanctions to mental abuse.
Click to expand...

And as this is religion, that is not your choice to make for everyone else.
 
Excon said:
And as this is religion, that is not your choice to make for everyone else.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with religion being practised by consenting adults. It is inflicting it on children that concerns me. Once again: criminalising mental abuse should be society's 'choice', not mine.
 
Sweden said:
Abusing childrens' minds by indoctrinating them in Sunday Schools is not "great". The damage may last longer than physical abuse.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have documentation that teaching religion to children is abusive? Please provide that documentation. Show exactly how it hurts them.
 
Sweden said:
I have no problem with religion being practised by consenting adults. It is inflicting it on children that concerns me. Once again: criminalising mental abuse should be society's 'choice', not mine.
Click to expand...
And again.

As this is religion, that is not your choice to make for everyone else.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and no "conservative" ones. They just don't get science.
Click to expand...

How strange is the USA! I am a conservative libertarian atheist - who 'gets' science. Something not in the least exceptional in the advanced world. Only in your, somewhat backward, country is it assumed that conservatives wallow in superstitious nonsense.
 
faithful_servant said:
Read the Danbury letters and you'll see that the issue that Pres. Jefferson was responding to was one of the gov't trying to interfere with the Church. That "wall of separation" that your ilk likes to take out of context was a wall intended to keep the gov't out of the church and that was ALL. The 1st Amendment was a protection against a Fed. sponsored DENOMINATION, not a closed door to the influence of the Church as whole. Had that been the case, then we wouldn't have things like opening every session of Congress with prayer, having chapels in Fed. buildings, having Chaplains for both the House and the Senate, etc. Study the language used when the Constitution was written and you'll see that the term "religion" was FAR more synonymous with "denomination" than how we think of it today. Study the writings of the FFs IN CONTEXT (yes, there's lot's of stuff out there taken out of context that people use to oppose this idea) and you'll see men who felt that the Church was critical, but that the choice of which denomination (or "religion" as was common term used) was up to the people themselves. This flawed idea that the 1st was supposed to keep the Church out of the gov't would be laughable to the FFs.
Click to expand...



Simply put...the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a state religion. So, legislating to allow a religious doctrine to be taught in government funded public schools to a captive audience that don't have the same rights as adults...is clearly an attempt to establish a religious belief and unquestionably unconstitutional.
 
Sweden said:
How strange is the USA! I am a conservative libertarian atheist - who 'gets' science. Something not in the least exceptional in the advanced world. Only in your, somewhat backward, country is it assumed that conservatives wallow in superstitious nonsense.
Click to expand...

One of the oldest methods in book of controlling the masses is to keep the populace ignorant and uneducated....and that's what propaganda and lying does.

Look at how Putin uses propaganda and lies to control the Russian population...then you start to see how it is being used by the Trump administration on the US population. The similarities are uncanny.
 
calamity said:
Well, if all but 6% of people with an education in science reject the Republicans, what the hell else do you think it is? Smart people do not identify as Republican.
Click to expand...

Smart people aren't limited to scientists.
 
pinqy said:
Requiring that a specific religious idea be taught in schools is establishing an officially government-supported religious position.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between requiring and, as the thread title says, allowing.
 
Sweden said:
I have no problem with religion being practised by consenting adults. It is inflicting it on children that concerns me. Once again: criminalising mental abuse should be society's 'choice', not mine.
Click to expand...

By that standard, anything that one disagrees with could be considered mental abuse.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Sweden said:
Abusing childrens' minds by indoctrinating them in Sunday Schools is not "great". The damage may last longer than physical abuse.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you have documentation that teaching religion to children is abusive? Please provide that documentation. Show exactly how it hurts them.
Click to expand...
And in doing so, Mr. Sweden, please avoid bias by including all religions in this, such as Wicca, Islam, Judaism, etc., and not just Christianity.
 
maquiscat said:
Smart people aren't limited to scientists.
Click to expand...

The thread happens to be about science. It was said in that context. But, yeah. I probably should have been more precise in my wording.
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, your posts are coming clearer now.

"Liberal" means Democrat, and "conservative" means Republican. Since most scientists are Democrats, then that must mean that the "liberals" are in charge of science.

And the science you want to reject is climate science, since it is telling you things you don't want to believe.

An interesting thing about science: It really doesn't care what you believe, it just is what it is. If you don't want to accept it, it still works. You can totally reject the physics behind heavier than air flight, but the plane will still deposit you at your destination. It really doesn't care.
Click to expand...

An interesting thing about science is that it is never settled, and it always encourages further exploration and review.

Wonder why that's missing in climate science?

Perhaps because such an effort might just reveal things that people don't want known.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Is there anything you disagree with that isn't Fascist?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But, I call things as I see them. Pretty difficult to deny the swing on the left involves a policy to destroy anything, or anyone who doesn't "toe the line".

That where we are today. It's demonstrated here, in the news, and in the left's effort to silence opposition through any means necessary.

That is a sad state of affairs to which the left has majority ownership.
 
ocean515 said:
An interesting thing about science is that it is never settled, and it always encourages further exploration and review.

Wonder why that's missing in climate science?

Perhaps because such an effort might just reveal things that people don't want known.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that denial springs forth from a spirit of discover.

The sematic BS you guys will tell yourself is amazing.
 
ocean515 said:
Of course it's a Fascist response. As I wrote, she could be an exceptional science teacher.
Click to expand...
No, not unless she has at least a Bachelor, preferably a Masters, in science. Min requirements for HS instructors is not a fascist concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom