View previous topic | View next topic

Organised religions and their Inconsistancies

Page 8 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


organised religon: good or bad?
good
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
bad
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
indifferent
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
nun
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

suze
63922.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:48 pm Reply with quote

Before Diana Ross left, absolutely everything !

 
Woodsman
64018.  Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:28 am Reply with quote

Quote:
And if such a Senator were to repeatedly speak about things like secession, labor unions, and his opposition to the Iraq war, I reckon a Republican Senate might just decide that he was "disloyal to the United States" and try and expel him.


No.

IMO, speaking about secession, not advocating or organizing for secession, would not get the Senator the boot. Lining up in defense would be libertarians and old line conservatives, especially the latter in defense of free political speech, no matter how distasteful the speech might be to them.

Labor union talk and belated opposition to Iraq already occurs. A Senator was on the news last week calling The Shrub's administration the most incompetent we have ever had.

 
samivel
64037.  Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:58 am Reply with quote

That's up against some pretty stiff competition, too.

 
suze
64166.  Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:27 pm Reply with quote

Woodsman - thanks for the view from Maine. I'm suitably reassured that there are still enough old-fashioned conservatives around to defeat any particularly ludicrous ideas from the Neocons!

Much as I'm no fan of GWB, I'd have to say that his is far from the most incompetent administration the US has ever had. President Taft springs to mind as having been spectacularly useless, but there were others!

 
Woodsman
64172.  Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:26 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
spectacularly useless



.... is not as problematic as incompetently dangerous.

 
Woodsman
64173.  Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:32 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm suitably reassured that there are still enough old-fashioned conservatives around


Our two Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, are much closer to the 'old-fashioned' conservative ilk, in the mold of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the woman who stood up to Joe McCarthy.

I apologize for this somewhat obscure side conversation about politicoes that no one else knows.

If only Maine could slip into Canada un-noticed.

 
Woodsman
64174.  Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:51 pm Reply with quote

Further to the thread title:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1748953,00.html

Curb influence of religions in schools, says NUT

Rebecca Smithers, education editor
Friday April 7, 2006
The Guardian

Teachers are to call for an end to state funding for faith schools in an attempt to halt the growing influence of religious organisations in education and end the controversial teaching of creationism.

Britain's biggest teaching union, the National Union of Teachers, warned yesterday that religious fundamentalists were gaining control of state schools - predominantly through the government's city academy programme - and some private businesses had too much influence over the curriculum.


snip

 
Gray
64175.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:16 am Reply with quote

Daniel Dennett, who's been touring the UK recently with his new book Breaking The Spell thinks - and I agree with him (surprise!) - that the teaching of all religions in school, including things like creation theory - should be mandatory.

This at least gives people the low-down on all apsects of the history and dogma of religion, and makes it clear how similar all religions are. It also, it appears, acts as somewhat of an innoculation against falling under the later cultish/evangelical spell of organised religion. I was brought up in a succession of religious schools (if C of E counts), and I am now a staunch non-believer.

I think it's important in the primary education section of one's early life to be able to consider things like science and religion side-by-side, so that one can made one's own decision as to which is appropriate to which areas of life. If it's left out of the curriculum, as it is in the US, then people are vulnerable to the first evangelist that comes along. Or - even worse in some cases - their parents' leanings.

 
Gray
64176.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:17 am Reply with quote

Needless to say, I don't think creation theory or ID should be discussed in science class, them not being even remotely scientific theories.

 
Woodsman
64240.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:42 am Reply with quote

Quote:
If it's left out of the curriculum, as it is in the US, then people are vulnerable to the first evangelist that comes along. Or - even worse in some cases - their parents' leanings.


It is an interesting proposition to teach 'all' religious flavors, but who would they be taught by? The US is in a bind in this regard as it would require a change in certain documents, or somehow detuning the populace so that competing religious views could be presented to their children. And the first evangelist has already come along in many homes as children are indoctrinated early.



The same parents who's children have early indoctrination are the ones that 'believe' that ID, etc is science.

 
suze
64251.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:14 am Reply with quote

It could be coming this side of the pond...

Hitherto, Intelligent Design has never formed part of any school Science syllabus in England, and indeed is only mentioned in passing in the Religious Education syllabi. But OCR (the second largest school exams body in England) includes ID and creationism in a revised science syllabus which will be taught from September. That body states that it does not consider ID to be a scientific theory so much as a belief, but considers it relevant for school science nonetheless.

This matter hasn't had as much coverage as it might in the British media, I think largely because most people in Britain have never heard of ID - even though the term was first used by an Irishman working in Scotland.

It gets a mention here though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

I'll be interested to see how it gets taught. I suspect most science teachers will teach it as "here's a strange thing that Americans believe" - much as that's not terribly satisfactory either, that was pretty much the only mention it ever got in my schooldays in Vancouver.

 
Gray
64255.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:41 am Reply with quote

It should really be taught in politics class, as it has far more to do with that than anything religious.

 
Woodsman
64353.  Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:20 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
But OCR (the second largest school exams body in England) includes ID and creationism in a revised science syllabus which will be taught from September. That body states that it does not consider ID to be a scientific theory so much as a belief, but considers it relevant for school science nonetheless.


Huh?

Me mate thinks a philosophy class would be good ... but that would only be in university.

Since we don't have RE in 'public' schools, I don't know where it would be placed there.

 
Gray
64376.  Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:58 am Reply with quote

It would have to be introduced, I suppose. I'm fairly sure, given what I've read (and am experiencing) of child psychology and cognitive science, that a 'vaccination measure' of this sort will prepare children's minds before they run the risk of being infiltrated from a single source - be it parents or peers.

I think all schools actually have a responsbility to inform in this area because the world contains religion, whether some of us like it or not. School is about preparing children, not protecting them.

 
suze
64380.  Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:21 am Reply with quote

Huh? indeed.

I found it rather strange too. It won't cause the fuss over here that it caused in Pennsylvania, but it's going to ruffle a few feathers in the education world.

Quite why they are doing it I have no idea. Although I note without comment that the main religious groups whose position approaches the notion of ID are the Christian fundamentalists (not a major factor in the UK) and the Muslims.

As for where it should come in the school curriculum. Science really isn't the place. RE is a compulsory subject in British state schools, and usually takes the form of "key features of various religions" rather than the study of Scripture as it was in years gone by. (Scripture is not compulsory; some schools offer it in addition as an elective.) It could be slotted in here, but doesn't really belong if we are going to teach ID without reference to who the Designer might be.

I take Gray's point that school kids ought to know that this notion exists, but it's not easy to find a place for it. General Studies?

 

Page 8 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group