Should All Schools Be Mandated To Teach Creationism?

Interesting videos about the drawbacks of teaching religion in schools:

[media]http://youtu.be/PHMEazzJQew[/media]

[media]http://youtu.be/OpqtTihJVms[/media]

 

lol I agree about the music.

 

I never try to insult with these topics. But this is how someone reacts who is kind of baffled I guess. Yeah I truly mean it when I say I find it so nonsensical I can only laugh about it. Why should one follow the scriptures of their religion to the letter exactly (wether they believe some parts or not)?? WHY!? Please tell!

You expand in that post on violence by religious people and that you have a problem with it... Do you think that would get less or more if they would all take their scriptures literally? Even though it would be convenient that there wouldn't be any killing over religion it still comes down on an individual, personal level. Wishing they would all take every part of their scripture as serious as you want them to makes really no sense to me. The fact that religious people of the same religion differ in their motives, set of beliefs etc. is of course a positive thing as those are the ones who are in it because they chose it, thought about it and actually have been busy with why they are part of their religion, other than the majority who doesn't read anything and blatantly repeat the old messages without thinking. And then you come in and say they should all be dogmatic, and basicly indoctrintate themselves, because the only good christian is one that follows every sentence in their holy book. You really don't see what is so strange about that? Who decides what a good christian is anyway? And why do you think it would be one that takes his whole holy book literally?

I think that is not a fact at all. It has become a wellknown statement but I don't agree with the way it is backed up. For instance everyone that died in a holy war is counted, but most wars including religious ones were not fought over religious differences. They were fought over power, land and influence. Religion has become often the scapegoat while it was (and is) abused by people, countries, governments etc.

 

To the statement religion has done more harm than good i would ask how much do each weigh?

 

I ask that all the time when i see it coming up again. It is suprising how many people have a problem with old christian messages still being repeated (except topnotch, he apparently would rather have every christian take those literally without asking ok I'm kind of kidding here because I don't really believe you would topnotch! I hope you elaborate though ), but then make themselves guilty of the same thing. Sure it sounds very plausible at first but yeah, how came that statement really to be, and how good have the people that proclaim it all the time have looked into that? Most didn't look into that at all, they just find it sound plausible so they assume they can safely parrot that statement.

 

Sorry, I had a long response typed up from you previous post and the fuckin page refreshed and I lost it.

Don't get me wrong, I believe religion has caused more harm than good and that is should fade out of existence, but that's just my opinion. Think about the millions of people who've died over the centuries, whether they killed someone or were killed by someone, based solely on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Then look at Westboro Baptist Church, as well as jihadists. There are even christian and jewish terrorists in middle-east who are STILL killing eachother(well, mainly they kill muslims, and vice versa) over some bullshit and, as fukt up as that is, I respect the fact that their faith is so strong that they're willing to kill/die for their beliefs. Even Mother Teresa said that humans deserve AIDS, because of our sins(she was referring specifically to homosexuality, I think), so fuck that bitch.

Of course I don't want religious people to follow their religious scripture, to the T, and has proven to be disastrous, but if you're gonna believe in something that is such a huge part of your life, and you think your "soul" depends on it, then do so wholeheartedly. As for your comment about people believing in their particular religious teachings/interpretations without question and without thinking for themselves.............of course that's how they're gonna be because, in most cases, it's been drilled into their heads ever since they were old enough to understand words.

Also, consider the fact that the Netherlands is simultaneously one of the least religious and happiest countries on the planet, along with having one of the healthiest economies.

I just woke up and ate 15mg of alprazolam, so I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself properly, but I hope I have done a good job of getting my point across.

 

You do, I am kind of slow today as well though and I will light up soon So I will take time to respond properly later. Because even if you do explain yourself properly I still do not agree (which is fine, I just feel like explaining my thoughts on the matter), especially with how everyone that was killed in the name of religion is supposedly primarily the fault of/caused by religion. If you look close you will see this is simply not the case in most situations.
Is religion to blame for, or the main cause of IS in Iraq and Syria for example? I don't think so, it is grossly abused. You might say but if there wouldn't be a religion there wouldn't be terrorists trying to create a kaliphate there. Well it is not religion that is making people kill other people over there and just because it is (ab)used to gain power and influence out of frustration and because people doesn't grant other people the same rights does not make it an atrocity that can be blamed primarily on religion, it should always be projected on the exact source, which always are the people who actually commited or gave order to these crimes. Most people never seem to think twice about this, yet a lot of them repeat and believe the idea that it is religion once again causing a lot of blood and suffering. Any turd who commits a massacre can attribute it to a higher goal, but who is actually plotting, ordering and or committing the action? Exactly, the turd himself. Not the ideology or religion he is attributing it to.

Well I was planning on responding later, guess I couldnt help myself (again)

 

While I agree that the US isn't in it for the religion. The US government just wants to insert themselves into all of the world's affairs, while also making hella money from the oil trade. The jews and muslims, on the other hand, are killing eachother because both sides believe they are entitled to the supposed "holy land".

And the fukt up thing is that you can't really blame them. Not only have they been brainwashed and are products of their environment(s), but many of them may also have a variety of mental illness. As I said in an earlier post, I don't believe evil people exist(because souls don't exist); I believe some people's brains are wired in such a way that leads them to commit such atrocities. The people aren't evil; their actions are evil.

That's just my take on it, but we should probably stop talking about this, because we've veered WAY off-topic. It's been an interesting debate though, imo, and I'm glad we were able to keep it civil

 

The underlined portion of this statement seems a fundamental understanding and is what I allude to when i say we are already conditioned before we even crack a book. To learn substantially about these things you need to overcome or route out the conditioning, to expose in ourselves unsubstantiated claims. Some element of this would be included in being taught to use critical thinking.

 

I wasn't thinking about the US at all when I talked about IS. I was talking about those IS warriors. That they are part of Islam and use that as an argument for their actions does not make the islam extra despicable, but (evidently I would almost say) those people themselves.
The conflict between palestines and israeli's is actually another example of what I said. It looks like a religious conflict about the 'holy land' but it isn't. It is about 2 different groups of people who have an issue over land and use anything that can help their claim on it. They would almost be stupid not to connect the dots to the biblical Israël, but to me it is really mostly an opportunistic thing to do. So is it really religion that is the main reason for conflict here? Or 2 different groups of people that are (ab)using religion in order to get their right?

 

I think it's a little bit of both, personally. It's about the "holy land", as well as control and genocide.

And sorry about the "IS" misunderstanding. I assume you were referring to Isis.

 

I was, they call themselves IS now, short for islamic state, instead of the former ISIS which stood for islamic state of Iraq and Syria.

I'm not sure how holy the land is for palestines. I think they just regard it as their homeland. It was not such a heavy conflict area continuously neither, the shit hit the fan after WO2 when there was a naive international thought that the jews could have their old land back. Guess what, it was taken (for centuries). DUH So yeah, not primarily a religious issue obviously. It is a really good example imo.

 

This thread gives me the feeling of deja vue all over again.: same old, same old. I haven't read them all, but has anyone brought up Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and the North Korean Kims? As body counts go, they still seem to be the biggest mass murderers in recent history. And they were atheists. ATHEISTS! Yes, but they didn't do all those killings "in the name of" atheism. No, they did them in the name of dialectical materialism. Same difference. Does that mean all atheists are evil violent communists? Of course not. That would be a stupid inference.That's my point.

Next point: Quakers, Mennonites, the Amish, Methodists, Disciples of Christ, and other denominations have, to the best of my knowledge, not been associated with promoting violence, so how is it fair to tar them with that brush just because they use the same generic label as more bellicose sects? Even Jehovah's Witnesses, irritating as they might be, are pacifists.

So can we put this particular fallacious argument to rest? It's like saying all or most men are potential rapists.

The generalization that religion does more harm than good is meaningless without some methodology for assigning value to such subjective feelings as community spirit, a sense of hope and meaning, norms of love for strangers, etc. Not to mention more tangible manifestations in hospitals, relief efforts, etc. And the general diffusion of religious norms and values into the larger society. Until you can put dollar figures on those, the statement that it does more harm than good simply means "I don't like religion."

As for the original post about teaching creationism in schools, it, like to many of the OPs posts, somewhat difficult to interpret. It sometimes seems to be advocating the teaching of Scientific Creationism in the schools, which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional because creationism is inherently a religious doctrine and the First Amendment prohibits teaching religious doctrines in school. But the OP also says "Comparative Religion should be taught to insure that no child is lost to creationist intellectual dissonance." That may sound good in principle, but in practice it would be a disaster, because religion is too controversial and emotional an issue to be handled competently by public school board's and teachers.

 

Actually the considerations in this thread are broader than the same old. A bridge somewhere must be made between what is taught traditionally at home and what we teach as common.

My take is specific curriculum shouldn't be mandated at all as the fact is we teach what we know and more importantly learn what we want to learn. Mandated education despite it's contribution to literacy is mandated to fit with the economic system and is just not a functional fit for many.

 

Another point is I am for free access.

 

Hear hear! It makes sense to have some transparancy to the system though. Just to take away suspicion of course.

 

i don't know what you mean by transparency.