Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody would get indoctrinated by learning those in school during a history lesson about the Middle East.
At least they're not talking about the daily stoning and beheadings in countries purely Islamic.....these kids have caught a break! Hopefully, the children never learn about the way women have to walk around veiled and NEVER alone or stay inside for fear of being beaten for being found alone outside of the house.
How many facts does it take to invalidate a hypothesis?
...When Darwin’s work was first made public in 1859, it shocked Britain’s religious establishment. And while today it is accepted by virtually all scientists, evolutionary theory still is rejected by many Americans, often because it conflicts with their religious beliefs about divine creation...
They're teaching about a culture to people who likely know little or nothing about that culture.
They're not teaching Islam itself or the Quran. It's not a religious study. It's an historical perspective.
I don't have a problem with a brief mention of anything that is central to any religion being used in a history class as long as there's no ministry involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Given how much people don't know about Islam or the wack-a-doo things I see on here that some people believe about it, a little education can't hurt.
Saudi Arabia and Iran sound like lovely places for women to live. Teaching culture are you sure about this? If they would teach their "culture" we would have more pink hat ladies understanding the "culture"
If Islam is so lovely and peaceful why are we taking in immigrants and refugees from Islamic countries?
You just assumed a lot about my beliefs right there. I'm open to the concepts of "vouchers", but do think there will be major problems with them (basically making poor schools even worse than before, and giving the wealthy a tax credit).
I am of the position that nobody has the right to steal money from people for their social causes. It is actually anti-American to force people to pay for things they have no benefit from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
It's interesting how you go on about morality, as if only religious people can have morality. You do realize that morality and ethics are not interlinked to religion, yes?
Good point, so you have now just made a strong argument as to why the separation of church and state argument as you would defend is actually being violated by your own means. You see, religion is simply a moral guiding system, so what makes the secularist more valid ore moral in their position than that of a religious person? You actual establish the argument that secularist are nothing more than religions to which establish their morality through individual declaration. So... what makes your individual religion acceptable in public declaration over that of religious ones? by the way, you haven't dealt with the history of Christianity and our nation in this, nor any of the specific facts of discussion I presented. You simply got upset and argued relative points with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
Keeping religion out of schools (beyond an educational lesson on what the religions of the world are) means that "religion can not dictate, establish doctrine or require conformity."
That is wrong.
In order to dictate, establish as doctrine and force conformity, it must be law to which any violate is punished according to the law. Read up on Virginia and the problems of them instituting such religious doctrine (establishing law as to legal days of worship, etc... ) and what led Mason to the focus of creating the first draft of the Bill of rights.
See, as long as it isn't law, you can stand at the rooftops, yell as loud as you like, demand as much as you want, I can flip you the "your number 1" sign and go about my business and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it.
So your argument is invalid on that point, but hey... I am good with abolishing all public funding for education anyway. why should a bunch of individual moralist determine such and then force me to pay for it? If I don't have children, why am I paying for your spawn anyway? Whats that? Moralizing your individual position again on how it is "good" for me to pay for all the children in public education? How dare you force me to your religious dogma! That is counter to the Constitution!
How about neither being taught in our schools. Religion has no place in public schools. Want to indoctrinate your child with your beliefs...have at it. But not on the public's dime.
Sorry.
Tell that to Oklahoma Republican legislators, who want to pass a bill to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school class rooms and government buildings. They don't care if it would be constitutional. They feel it's up to a court to determine that, not the legislators themselves. It's a pretty sorry way to govern, if you ask me.
Nobody would get indoctrinated by learning those in school during a history lesson about the Middle East.
Close.
Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
Establishment of the daily prayers;
Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
Self-purification through fasting; and
The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able
and how about political indoctrination not being espoused on our kids too!!!????
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMac18
How about neither being taught in our schools. Religion has no place in public schools. Want to indoctrinate your child with your beliefs...have at it. But not on the public's dime.
Tell that to Oklahoma Republican legislators, who want to pass a bill to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school class rooms and government buildings. They don't care if it would be constitutional. They feel it up to a court to determine that, not the legislators themselves. It's a pretty sorry way to govern, if you ask me.
Nothing unconstitutional by doing such. There is no constitutional protection from encountering religion. There is only a protection from the federal government forcing adherence to such doctrines. In fact, by using government to force out the encounter of anything as such in public is a direct violation of the first amendment by the federal government who has ZERO authority over the issue be it for or against. The federal government has NO say on the matter and if more secularist would have read ALL of the Jefferson letter they so moronically quote as evidence, they would have seen that Jefferson was claiming that the federal government had NO AUTHORITY AT ALL on the matter and so the Danbury Congregation could rest at ease.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
