Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't Say *** BillFollow

#27 Apr 24 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Bsphil wrote:
Religion is not science, that pretty much necessitates it be mutually exclusive from a science class. Find me the evidence that religion is a science. You can't, though, because it isn't one.

That's ok, by the by. I'm completely fine with it not being a science, I understand that and am fine with that. Just don't pretend that it is.


/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.

Nilitai wrote:
I agree with phil here. In the UK at least we have "Religious Studies/Education" class. We learn about all religion. We learn about their creation myths and we assess their beliefs. You can even go on to study it at Advanced (the level before University) if you want to. Then it expands into real Philosophy. I used to enjoy that class actually. It was interesting learning what other religions thought.

I'm all for teaching religion in school. However, I'm definitely against teaching mythology in the Science class room though. Like 'phil said, religion is not science. They should be mutually exclusive as far as teaching them in particular classes is concerned.


Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.

Ugly wrote:

How so? Religion's had a huge impact on history.


It depends what is taught and how it is taught. If you teach how religion has affected our society, that's one thing. If you teach that John The Baptist was alive and his contributions like George Washington, then you're teaching religion as facts in a public school.

Belkira wrote:

But to attempt to make sense of your post, because I think the gist is to ask why I think this bill is bad since it only limits a teacher up until the 8th grade, I would have to point out that we had a *** ed class in 6th or 7th grade. I had my first crush in the fourth grade, and my first boyfriend in the sixth grade. I think it would be perfectly natural for a kid who is comfortable with a teacher to ask him/her if having feelings for someone of the same *** is normal. That teacher should have the right to try to comfort the kid, or to tell the kid they don't feel comfortable talking about it, and they should talk to their parents.


I THINK the latter is the intent of the bill. Again, I think the bill is silly, but at the same time, as a society, we're putting too much responsibility on the education system. I'm not a parent, but I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to talk to their children about those things in the early years. As much as the media likes to promote *** (i.e., "16 and pregnant"), not every child is having ***.
#28 Apr 24 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.
It should not even be mentioned, even just in passing. Not even a word. It's not science, it does not belong there.

Almalieque wrote:
Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.
for a science class, good.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#29 Apr 24 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
Religion is not science, that pretty much necessitates it be mutually exclusive from a science class. Find me the evidence that religion is a science. You can't, though, because it isn't one.

That's ok, by the by. I'm completely fine with it not being a science, I understand that and am fine with that. Just don't pretend that it is.


/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.

Nilitai wrote:
I agree with phil here. In the UK at least we have "Religious Studies/Education" class. We learn about all religion. We learn about their creation myths and we assess their beliefs. You can even go on to study it at Advanced (the level before University) if you want to. Then it expands into real Philosophy. I used to enjoy that class actually. It was interesting learning what other religions thought.

I'm all for teaching religion in school. However, I'm definitely against teaching mythology in the Science class room though. Like 'phil said, religion is not science. They should be mutually exclusive as far as teaching them in particular classes is concerned.


Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.
Well then perhaps you should be lobbying your congressman or senator or whatever for religious studies classes to be mandatory, instead of clogging up the biology curriculum with junk science?

Seems like a happy compromise to me. Your constitution doesn't say there can be no religion in schools, all it says is that state funded institutions can not promote one religion over another. I don't see teaching religious studies like we do on this side of the pond to be adverse to that.

Someone correct me if I got the finer points of your constitution wrong here.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#30 Apr 24 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I THINK the latter is the intent of the bill. Again, I think the bill is silly, but at the same time, as a society, we're putting too much responsibility on the education system. I'm not a parent, but I believe it is the responsibility of the parents to talk to their children about those things in the early years. As much as the media likes to promote *** (i.e., "16 and pregnant"), not every child is having ***.


The intent of the bill is to impose a Christian view of sexuality, and I'm pretty sure you know that. Regardless, a teacher always had the right to tell a kid they weren't comfortable discussing it and to ask their parents. Now they are forced to do so. If the kid is so uncomfortable talking to their parents that they'd rather reach out to a teacher, the last thing we should do is forcibly close that avenue of comfort for the kid.
#31Almalieque, Posted: Apr 24 2011 at 8:14 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) My opinion doesn't change. Again, I don't have any children, but at the end of the day, the child is mine. I want teachers to teach their respective subject to my child. I don't disagree with teachers being advisers and mentors, but only for certain topics that I find "appropriate" and I don't consider "***" as something appropriate for a teacher to be discussing with my 6-12 year old child.
#32 Apr 24 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Bsphil wrote:
Religion is not science, that pretty much necessitates it be mutually exclusive from a science class. Find me the evidence that religion is a science. You can't, though, because it isn't one.

That's ok, by the by. I'm completely fine with it not being a science, I understand that and am fine with that. Just don't pretend that it is.


/sigh.. I'm making a distinction between teaching religion and simply mentioning in a science class that difference between creationism, ID, etc. while teaching Evolution. My science book did just that, so I know it isn't some crazy concept that isn't done.

Nilitai wrote:
I agree with phil here. In the UK at least we have "Religious Studies/Education" class. We learn about all religion. We learn about their creation myths and we assess their beliefs. You can even go on to study it at Advanced (the level before University) if you want to. Then it expands into real Philosophy. I used to enjoy that class actually. It was interesting learning what other religions thought.

I'm all for teaching religion in school. However, I'm definitely against teaching mythology in the Science class room though. Like 'phil said, religion is not science. They should be mutually exclusive as far as teaching them in particular classes is concerned.


Read above. I don't think there are many religious study classes in U.S public schools. Even so, they probably aren't mandatory. As a result, all you get is Evolution as a result.
Well then perhaps you should be lobbying your congressman or senator or whatever for religious studies classes to be mandatory, instead of clogging up the biology curriculum with junk science?

Seems like a happy compromise to me.




So instead of going over an already existing section in a textbook in a class, you propose creating an entire different class, creating more necessary resources and adjusting the entire curriculum? Uh, no. I think I'll stick with my more feasible solution.


As I suspected then. What you really have the problem with is the teaching of evolution. If presenting your religion's account was your real aim, you would have no issue with lobbying for a Religious Studies class which teaches the viewpoints of all religions as well as your own.

What you really want is to water down the teaching of Evolution with your religon's own version of the creation myth. I wonder if you'd be so receptive to ID if it was Shiva, not Yahweh, who was the god depicted.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#33 Apr 24 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Regardless, a teacher always had the right to tell a kid they weren't comfortable discussing it and to ask their parents. Now they are forced to do so. If the kid is so uncomfortable talking to their parents that they'd rather reach out to a teacher, the last thing we should do is forcibly close that avenue of comfort for the kid.


My opinion doesn't change. Again, I don't have any children, but at the end of the day, the child is mine. I want teachers to teach their respective subject to my child. I don't disagree with teachers being advisers and mentors, but only for certain topics that I find "appropriate" and I don't consider "***" as something appropriate for a teacher to be discussing with my 6-12 year old child.

Edited, Apr 25th 2011 4:15am by Almalieque


This law wouldn't make it illegal for a teacher to discuss "***" with your 6-12 year old child. Only non-heterosexual ***. Of course, depending on the situation, that discussion could be illegal through other laws, but we aren't talking about those situations.

See, you are trying to make this out to be some sort of all encompassing "Protect the children from *** discussions that the teachers shouldn't be having" law. When really it's "Protect the children from the gays because knowing about homosexuality makes them all turn *****".

That scene from The Simpsons Movie, where Ralph sees Bart skateboarding naked and says "I like men now." It doesn't really work that way.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#34 Apr 24 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
See DSD, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one mentioned religion and immediately you throw in this Christian agenda.[


Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?

Almalieque wrote:
I could easily say that opposition is supporting the Pro-homosexuality agenda to force people to accept homosexuality. That doesn't take us anywhere.

Besides, I strongly disagree with either. I fully support the belief of being "too young to discuss sexuality".


Then maybe you should discuss that with my county, since we had our ***-ed class in the sixth grade, and the human body, since puberty usually happens in junior high.

Almalieque wrote:
My opinion doesn't change. Again, I don't have any children, but at the end of the day, the child is mine. I want teachers to teach their respective subject to my child. I don't disagree with teachers being advisers and mentors, but only for certain topics that I find "appropriate" and I don't consider "***" as something appropriate for a teacher to be discussing with my 6-12 year old child.


I take issue with the "my kid is my property and shouldn't ever hear anything unless I deem it appropriate" mentality. If a kid has an issue and wants to talk about it with an adult because you (the parent, not necessarily you in particular, though I see you easily fitting into this dichotomy) are too much of a douche to consider that your kid might be ***, then I don't see why the state should take away that avenue of discussion.
#35 Apr 24 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,454 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
See DSD, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one mentioned religion and immediately you throw in this Christian agenda.[


Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?



I havent even started in this discussion yet and already Im being blamed. I don't know if I should be insulted or impressed!
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.


#36 Apr 24 2011 at 10:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
DSD wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
See DSD, this is exactly what I'm talking about. No one mentioned religion and immediately you throw in this Christian agenda.[


Yeah, but I live in Tennessee, and I've seen legislation like this happen often, so I understand where it's coming from. Besides, was there an attack made...?



I havent even started in this discussion yet and already Im being blamed. I don't know if I should be insulted or impressed!


Neither. It's just another one of his "down the garden path of my MIND" type deals. Ignore it. It won't go away, but it's a start...
#37 Apr 24 2011 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
A child's right to learn about themselves and the world around them should almost always supersede the parent's desire to keep them ignorant. Good parenting is about responsibilities to the child, not rights of the parent, as is consistently the judgment in legal matters far and wide. A health class that can't discuss sexuality fairly openly is a crime against the students. All it accomplishes is assuring that they get misinformation from their peers and other sources instead of reliable information from a professional.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#38 Apr 25 2011 at 2:47 AM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I like how the bill implies that sexual activity is the only relevant topic when it comes to *** people.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#39 Apr 25 2011 at 4:01 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I like how the bill implies that sexual activity is the only relevant topic when it comes to *** people.
Of course! Don't you know that homosexuality is sexual deviance? These people can't possibly feel love for one another because Jebus said that love is between a man and a woman!!11!!1one!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#40 Apr 25 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Belkira wrote:


Almalieque wrote:
That would be a difference in opinion as many (not all) people are against of homosexuality because of religious preferences.


I'd be curious to hear what rationalization they use.

The only thing I can come up with is ignorance.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#41Almalieque, Posted: Apr 25 2011 at 7:01 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Here you go DSD, more "us vs them talk". Get him! Don't hold back now.
#42 Apr 25 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
*** Bill.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#43 Apr 25 2011 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I'm not following the DSD references. Is everybody who is not Alma a DSD sock puppet?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#44 Apr 25 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
I'm not following the DSD references. Is everybody who is not Alma a DSD sock puppet?
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#45 Apr 25 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
As I suspected then. What you really have the problem with is the teaching of evolution. If presenting your religion's account was your real aim, you would have no issue with lobbying for a Religious Studies class which teaches the viewpoints of all religions as well as your own.



That would make your assumption wrong. I'm against teaching religion in school. I've already stated that. I don't care that evolution is taught in school above the 8th grade. Just as with Belkira, you are creating this Christian agenda that doesn't exist.
So you deny that proponents of Intelligent Design are largely Christian fundementalists?

Almalieque wrote:
The reason why I don't favor teaching religion in school is because there are too many different religions and denominations and is impossible to get a fair representation without actually having a religious studies class, which making such a class mandatory in the U.S. public school system is not likely.
The UK manages it just fine. I'm not sure why any US legislature would be against a Religious Studies class. So long as it doesn't promote one religion over another. Merely saying "There are these people who believe X", is not promoting one religion over another. However, presenting Intelligent Design which, lets face it, is Creationism repackaged is promoting a specifically Christian mythology over all others. It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?

I think learning what different religions actually believe is good for a young person, especially those who have been indoctrinated into one particular faith. It did me a world of good to learn about other religions outside Christianity. It was also good for me to learn that there were people in the Christian faith who were not Catholics. Admittedly this is one of the things that caused me to doubt the validity of scripture and dogma in my old faith, but still, I digress.

Almalieque wrote:
The reason why I don't care if evolution is taught is because it's "science", relatively consistent and will likely not persuade a teenager believer.
I'm not sure what you mean. You're saying that Evolution is some kind of Pseudo-Science? Do you even know what it is you're arguing against? Or do you buy into what people like Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind think evolution is?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
What you really want is to water down the teaching of Evolution with your religon's own version of the creation myth. I wonder if you'd be so receptive to ID if it was Shiva, not Yahweh, who was the god depicted.


Yea, good thing I said teaching about the terms, NOT TEACHING RELIGION. That means, you can fill the blank with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care.
So you don't mind if we present Creationism and ID, and then go on to say why they are incorrect. So long as they're presented, right?



Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Of course! Don't you know that homosexuality is sexual deviance? These people can't possibly feel love for one another because Jebus said that love is between a man and a woman!!11!!1one!


Here you go DSD, more "us vs them talk". Get him! Don't hold back now.
Was my sarcasm not an accurate summation of the Christian belief on homosexuals?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#46 Apr 25 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Lol, TN can just keep sticking it's head in the sand...it will not make the world 1950 again.

If they don't want to teach *** ed to the younger students, fine. But marriage is not ***. Families are not ***.

How does the teacher answer the kids questions about mommys and daddys and family make-up and similarities and differences?





____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#47 Apr 25 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Kavekk wrote:
*** Bill.
It prefers to be addressed as *** William.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#48 Apr 25 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Quote:

Yea, good thing I said teaching about the terms, NOT TEACHING RELIGION. That means, you can fill the blank with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care.
So you don't mind if we present Creationism and ID, and then go on to say why they are incorrect. So long as they're presented, right?


I'm assuming we all know, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created because ID was being voted into public schools. The argument was, if we're letting Intelligent Design into science classes, we by rights need to involve other theories as well:
Quote:
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.


And frankly, I like the FSM's more than ID.
FSM
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#49 Apr 25 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#50 Apr 25 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.
I think it could be a good classroom lesson (for high schoolers) to compare and contrast the scientific principles that Evolution and Creationism are founded on.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Apr 25 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It is not science, thus, does not belong in a science class room. Why can't you understand this?
I disagree. While it's not science, it is one of the more widely held counter views to Evolution and therefore, should be mentioned, if only to make students aware that another view exists. I don't think it should be taught, but a passing mention is important, given we're talking about educating people.


This exactly.. Nothing more and nothing less.
Reply To Thread
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.">

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (60)