No. I think kids should be taught morals at home or other places of theri parents choosing. School is mandatory so public schools should not be a venue for teaching morals, much like it shouldn't be a venue for teaching religion. Schools are a place where kids should be putting their morals into action and then be held accountable if and when they break school rules.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
comparing religion to dogs and other pets. wow! nice touch!
thanks...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Interesting. As we all know, History is highly subjective and often written from the standpoint of the victor. Therefore, factual isn't necessarily its strong suit.
In addition, much of the bible is history. Now, you may not believe those things happened, but you weren't there. Nor were you there when the history that you do accept happened....yet you believe that....?
of course History is subjective... thats what makes it so interesting is that its open for debate and isnt so linear that it cant be argued against or for... if evidence cropped up that made a significant point in history change, then at least that evidence would be studied, looked at and then the history would change according to the new evidence..
with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.
also when i meant teaching factual history... i'm talking about the 2nd world war being from 1939-1945... who fought who... what ship bombed who... what politician served what country and what leader ordered this and that... i'm talking about Queen Elizabeth I reign... its period of time... who was her political allies... what castles she lived in... what happened under her rule to other countries... etc, etc, etc...
as a book, the bible is a good indicator of history... it describes how people lived, the buildings, the trade at that time, etc etc etc........ btu as factual evidence its subjective... as are the writings of Tacitus and Herodotus... all very subjective.... i accept that, but you wont accept that things in the bible were written with a concept in mind.... you wont accept that maybe the things described didnt happen, whereas i'm open to the idea that maybe the Romans did conquer all of Scotland... history shows they didnt, but if evidence cropped up showing a fort way up in the north of Scotland... then history would be re-written...
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
First of all religion does not equal morals. What kind of morals are that anyway, excluding Jews? She only asks for a less exclusive prayer, her daughter had to hear a discriminating speech about how Jesus is the only path, how very nice of you christians, yet another example of your fine morals, excluding others.
And I know that's not what Christianity is, or should be about, but you and all those people from that article that claim these "Jews" are a threat to their way of life, make it seem that that is what it is about.
And that is, imo, reason enough to ban religion from public schools.
of course History is subjective... thats what makes it so interesting is that its open for debate and isnt so linear that it cant be argued against or for... if evidence cropped up that made a significant point in history change, then at least that evidence would be studied, looked at and then the history would change according to the new evidence..
with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.
also when i meant teaching factual history... i'm talking about the 2nd world war being from 1939-1945... who fought who... what ship bombed who... what politician served what country and what leader ordered this and that... i'm talking about Queen Elizabeth I reign... its period of time... who was her political allies... what castles she lived in... what happened under her rule to other countries... etc, etc, etc...
as a book, the bible is a good indicator of history... it describes how people lived, the buildings, the trade at that time, etc etc etc........ btu as factual evidence its subjective... as are the writings of Tacitus and Herodotus... all very subjective.... i accept that, but you wont accept that things in the bible were written with a concept in mind.... you wont accept that maybe the things described didnt happen, whereas i'm open to the idea that maybe the Romans did conquer all of Scotland... history shows they didnt, but if evidence cropped up showing a fort way up in the north of Scotland... then history would be re-written...
You don't know what I would or would not accept.
You appear very accepting and understanding of a very highly subjective subject like history and other subjects such as science which are teaching theories that might be false tomorrow, yet you are completely close minded to religion which really isn't all that different as I've pointed out. It's quite hypocritical.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.
i believe this is what you would do... you would dismiss new evidence so that your beliefs remain true... if it was all exposed as a ruse tomorrow... there would still be people who wouldnt accept that truth... i believe you and others like you on here would be those people
You appear very accepting and understanding of a very highly subjective subject like history and other subjects such as science which are teaching theories that might be false tomorrow, yet you are completely close minded to religion which really isn't all that different as I've pointed out. It's quite hypocritical.
science is hardly subjective is it!! religion doesnt teach me anything though... i'm interested in the history of the incas, the egyptians, the romans, 1st world war, scottish enlightenment, whatever it may be... even the era of jesus is historically interesting... i close my mind to the fish and loaves stories and the turning of water to wine, etc... as, yes, they are highly subjective and are a question of faith...
you believe these things happened, yet you wont believe or accept that the world was created by an astral explosion and that man evolved from ape... and yet i'm hypocritical!!!?!?!?
you are blocking any scientific discoveries completely out of your mind.. yet you believe in angels, the parting of great rivers, ressurections...
cant you see how outlandish these theories are and why kids shouldnt be taught them... if we teach them about this crap then David Copperfield and David Blane become the new gods.... and thats a scary thought!!!
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.
i believe this is what you would do... you would dismiss new evidence so that your beliefs remain true... if it was all exposed as a ruse tomorrow... there would still be people who wouldnt accept that truth... i believe you and others like you on here would be those people
science is hardly subjective is it!! religion doesnt teach me anything though... i'm interested in the history of the incas, the egyptians, the romans, 1st world war, scottish enlightenment, whatever it may be... even the era of jesus is historically interesting... i close my mind to the fish and loaves stories and the turning of water to wine, etc... as, yes, they are highly subjective and are a question of faith...
you believe these things happened, yet you wont believe or accept that the world was created by an astral explosion and that man evolved from ape... and yet i'm hypocritical!!!?!?!?
you are blocking any scientific discoveries completely out of your mind.. yet you believe in angels, the parting of great rivers, ressurections...
cant you see how outlandish these theories are and why kids shouldnt be taught them... if we teach them about this crap then David Copperfield and David Blane become the new gods.... and thats a scary thought!!!
You're attributing beliefs to me that I've never expressed in this thread or otherwise. I'm basing my comments about you on what you've said in this thread. Your mind is so closed to religion that you refuse to see that the issues you have with it also apply to the things you seemingly believe.
I definitely do not block scientific discoveries from my mind. I believe that science explains religion and supports it, not that it disproves it.
Your first statement about the signed DNA parchment is a good question. I do not know what I'd believe at that point. Of course, until that happens I won't have to make that choice.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're attributing beliefs to me that I've never expressed in this thread or otherwise..
no, no... they are my beliefs, my beliefs about what deeply religious people would do faced with compelling evidence....
are you suggesting my beliefs are wrong, or somewhat non-legitimate.... hmmmm
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
ok... hypocritical because i believe the current facts that history has but refuse to believe stories of people turning to salt and such-like.... ok then that makes me hypocritical... i can handle that 'label'
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
ok... hypocritical because i believe the current facts that history has but refuse to believe stories of people turning to salt and such-like.... ok then that makes me hypocritical... i can handle that 'label'
Not for that specific event or detail, but for your rational behind supporting your beliefs and dismissing others.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
comparing religion to dogs and other pets. wow! nice touch!
"I always tell the truth. Even when I lie" - T. Montana
---
"Yeah i know... sounds stupid." Aldrin said.
#18 INC forever
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
thanks...
of course History is subjective... thats what makes it so interesting is that its open for debate and isnt so linear that it cant be argued against or for... if evidence cropped up that made a significant point in history change, then at least that evidence would be studied, looked at and then the history would change according to the new evidence..
with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.
also when i meant teaching factual history... i'm talking about the 2nd world war being from 1939-1945... who fought who... what ship bombed who... what politician served what country and what leader ordered this and that... i'm talking about Queen Elizabeth I reign... its period of time... who was her political allies... what castles she lived in... what happened under her rule to other countries... etc, etc, etc...
as a book, the bible is a good indicator of history... it describes how people lived, the buildings, the trade at that time, etc etc etc........ btu as factual evidence its subjective... as are the writings of Tacitus and Herodotus... all very subjective.... i accept that, but you wont accept that things in the bible were written with a concept in mind.... you wont accept that maybe the things described didnt happen, whereas i'm open to the idea that maybe the Romans did conquer all of Scotland... history shows they didnt, but if evidence cropped up showing a fort way up in the north of Scotland... then history would be re-written...
First of all religion does not equal morals. What kind of morals are that anyway, excluding Jews? She only asks for a less exclusive prayer, her daughter had to hear a discriminating speech about how Jesus is the only path, how very nice of you christians, yet another example of your fine morals, excluding others.
And I know that's not what Christianity is, or should be about, but you and all those people from that article that claim these "Jews" are a threat to their way of life, make it seem that that is what it is about.
And that is, imo, reason enough to ban religion from public schools.
naděje umírá poslední
You don't know what I would or would not accept.
You appear very accepting and understanding of a very highly subjective subject like history and other subjects such as science which are teaching theories that might be false tomorrow, yet you are completely close minded to religion which really isn't all that different as I've pointed out. It's quite hypocritical.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.
i believe this is what you would do... you would dismiss new evidence so that your beliefs remain true... if it was all exposed as a ruse tomorrow... there would still be people who wouldnt accept that truth... i believe you and others like you on here would be those people
science is hardly subjective is it!! religion doesnt teach me anything though... i'm interested in the history of the incas, the egyptians, the romans, 1st world war, scottish enlightenment, whatever it may be... even the era of jesus is historically interesting... i close my mind to the fish and loaves stories and the turning of water to wine, etc... as, yes, they are highly subjective and are a question of faith...
you believe these things happened, yet you wont believe or accept that the world was created by an astral explosion and that man evolved from ape... and yet i'm hypocritical!!!?!?!?
you are blocking any scientific discoveries completely out of your mind.. yet you believe in angels, the parting of great rivers, ressurections...
cant you see how outlandish these theories are and why kids shouldnt be taught them... if we teach them about this crap then David Copperfield and David Blane become the new gods.... and thats a scary thought!!!
You're attributing beliefs to me that I've never expressed in this thread or otherwise. I'm basing my comments about you on what you've said in this thread. Your mind is so closed to religion that you refuse to see that the issues you have with it also apply to the things you seemingly believe.
I definitely do not block scientific discoveries from my mind. I believe that science explains religion and supports it, not that it disproves it.
Your first statement about the signed DNA parchment is a good question. I do not know what I'd believe at that point. Of course, until that happens I won't have to make that choice.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no, no... they are my beliefs, my beliefs about what deeply religious people would do faced with compelling evidence....
are you suggesting my beliefs are wrong, or somewhat non-legitimate.... hmmmm
Nope, not wrong...just hypocritical.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
ok... hypocritical because i believe the current facts that history has but refuse to believe stories of people turning to salt and such-like.... ok then that makes me hypocritical... i can handle that 'label'
Not for that specific event or detail, but for your rational behind supporting your beliefs and dismissing others.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.