PDA

View Full Version : Should the state be secular?


Flapjack
August 26th, 2016, 11:17 PM
Heyyy so I have noticed there have been a few people debating this, me included, sooo I thought we should have a thread for it!

I think we should have a secular state!!:)

If you believe in a God, why do you feel that the only way people would believe in him is if you brainwash them as children?

mattsmith48
August 26th, 2016, 11:34 PM
Heyyy so I have noticed there have been a few people debating this, me included, sooo I thought we should have a thread for it!

I think we should have a secular state!!:)

If you believe in a God, why do you feel that the only way people would believe in him is if you brainwash them as children?

Ive said in another thread that your allowed to believe in the fictional characters you want but they are places to worship them like your house and a church and places where you shouldnt worship them like a school or any other public places run and/or payed for by the government.

Ive also said that you should keep your religion away from children and when they are old enough and they chose to believe in one they will pick the one they want if they pick the same than you good if they pick another one thats good too, if they don't believe in any even better.

Dalcourt
August 26th, 2016, 11:58 PM
Isn't that two different topics really?

Of course it would be best for the state to be secular but to put this into reality is very hard as the burkini ban that was brought up in the VT chronicle showed.
And this example from Germany https://www.rt.com/news/357170-german-mayor-muslim-headscarf/
So how to stay neutral then and at the same time give everyone their personal space.


As for the second. I don't think kids are all kinda brainwashed. Everyone can decide if they want to follow their parents religion or not. You just talk about religious extremists here.
It's the parents duty do instill some sort of believe in you that has not to be a religion of course and you have to use your brains when you grow up to decide whether you want to follow this believes or not.

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 12:08 AM
Isn't that two different topics really?

Of course it would be best for the state to be secular but to put this into reality is very hard as the burkini ban that was brought up in the VT chronicle showed.
And this example from Germany https://www.rt.com/news/357170-german-mayor-muslim-headscarf/
So how to stay neutral then and at the same time give everyone their personal space.


As for the second. I don't think kids are all kinda brainwashed. Everyone can decide if they want to follow their parents religion or not. You just talk about religious extremists here.
It's the parents duty do instill some sort of believe in you that has not to be a religion of course and you have to use your brains when you grow up to decide whether you want to follow this believes or not.

I am not just talking about extremists buddy and I was more thinking should religion be taught as fact in schools? Should evolution be taught in science class? Whether a religious family should raise their family to be religious is a more complex issue :)

Drewboyy
August 27th, 2016, 12:12 AM
So there is something wrong with showing children morals that could be found sometimes only through the Bible or other religious texts? If anything, it helps them become a better person and doesn't "brainwash" them like there's something wrong about believing in an ultimate being.

If people who grow up surrounded by one religion can change that religion/become atheist, the opposite could happen just as easily.

Anyone should be allowed to worship whatever they want, wherever they want (even public places and govt. owned place) as long as it doesn't interfere or harm other people or force others to partake in it.

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 12:19 AM
So there is something wrong with showing children morals
Morals like respecting elders and being an honest person? Yeah do teach that but that can be taught in a secular school with out relating it to a specific religion.
could be found sometimes only through the Bible or other religious texts? .
Example? I am sure they can be taught these morals without the religious relation.
doesn't "brainwash" them like there's something wrong about believing in an ultimate being.

There is nothing wrong with believing in it but children suck up info as they try to make sense of the world and if there is a school telling them a specific skygod is true and to oppose science then I do see that as harmful and brainwashing.


If people who grow up surrounded by one religion can change that religion/become atheist, the opposite could happen just as easily.

Wonder why... xD If you believe your skygod is real then why do kids need to be brainwashed to believe in him?

Anyone should be allowed to worship whatever they want, wherever they want (even public places and govt. owned place) as long as it doesn't interfere or harm other people or force others to partake in it.
This is unrelated and of course everyone should be allowed to worship who they want to, that is a benefit of a secular state.

Babs
August 27th, 2016, 12:42 AM
There is no scientific evidence that supports religion, only to the contrary. So I don't think the laws should be based on something that is blatant misinformation. Just my onion.

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 12:47 AM
There is no scientific evidence that supports religion, only to the contrary. So I don't think the laws should be based on something that is blatant misinformation. Just my onion.
Yeah I 100% agree :)

Uniquemind
August 27th, 2016, 01:56 AM
I am not just talking about extremists buddy and I was more thinking should religion be taught as fact in schools? Should evolution be taught in science class? Whether a religious family should raise their family to be religious is a more complex issue :)

Evolution as a theory does and cannot be compared to the mantras of a faith.

Because faiths can't be studied the same way science can via logic.

I don't mind people praying before they eat a meal or whatever even in a public place, it really depends on their sphere of influence in any said moment in relation to their geographical-political location.

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 02:09 AM
I don't mind people praying before they eat a meal or whatever even in a public place, it really depends on their sphere of influence in any said moment in relation to their geographical-political location.
Nor do I, people should be able to pray to whatever God they want and do whatever religious stuff they want but that is not what this thread it about.

I asked whether or not you think the state should be secular or not. Ie if laws are made for religious reasons and religion being taught in schools, stuff like that.

Uniquemind
August 27th, 2016, 03:09 AM
Nor do I, people should be able to pray to whatever God they want and do whatever religious stuff they want but that is not what this thread it about.

I asked whether or not you think the state should be secular or not. Ie if laws are made for religious reasons and religion being taught in schools, stuff like that.

I think the state should be secular, but realistically that can only go so far due to a slight overlap when it comes to human behavior, customs, and expectations.

If laws are created due to inspiration from a faith based value, but also can be justified from a secular standpoint, then the latter is the reason why it exists or should exist, rather than the inspirational background from whence it was conceived. To that extent separation between secular and non-secular topics cannot go an farther.


I've been listening to a lot of Milo Yiannopoulos lately, and although I disagree with him and at times find him extremely offensive, he brings up some valid points of where over corrections have occurred in social expectations of various groups.

PlasmaHam
August 27th, 2016, 08:13 AM
Most countries of the world are secular states, but I presume you want to take that to extremes. I'm fine with separation of church and state, but once you get to the point where you won't even consider religious ideas because of their status, then you've crossed the line.

Uniquemind made a good point regarding that. Ideas based on religion, and ideas based on secularism, should have the same legal standing. We shouldn't not consider ideas based upon who conceived them, but of their merit. Lets take the Christian principle of equality, compared to the mainly secular idea of slavery during early 1800s America. Which idea is clearly superior, and which one should be chosen? Equality is obviously the answer, and whether or not that is religiously based should not be considered.

Dalcourt
August 27th, 2016, 08:35 AM
I am not just talking about extremists buddy and I was more thinking should religion be taught as fact in schools? Should evolution be taught in science class? Whether a religious family should raise their family to be religious is a more complex issue :)

But it will mainly be extremists who will be bothered right?

Anyway as a whole most states are secular but being completely neutral is just not possible. There will always be people who feel their personal rights infringed in one way or other. So how could you put complete neutrality into practice without hurting certain groups?

As for schools there should be classes about religion but not about one religion and how this one is right and others are wrong. Kids should have to learn to look at all religions from a neutral objective point of few. They should learn about the basic believes of all those religions about their history and development etc.
This should not only include the large world religions but also more specific things like Wicca or Voodoo for example...and of course kids should learn what Atheism and Agnosticism and things like that really mean and maybe basics about Philosophy.
This would be a key factor to grow up more open minded and less prejudiced.

Science classes should of course include evolution theories and all what belongs there cuz that's part of basic knowledge.

Religion per se is private. So personal beliefs don't belong in schools or state run places.

Vlerchan
August 27th, 2016, 08:50 AM
I support the separation of church and state.

Milo Yiannopoulos
Can you recommend any of his articles to start with?

I can watch or listen because of terrible rural broadband.

Jinglebottom
August 27th, 2016, 09:00 AM
I'm personally glad my school bans all sorts of religious expression. The staff isn't allowed to wear any type of veil/cross, and anyone found discussing religion or discriminating against others on the basis of their faith is immediately expelled, no second chances. No classes on religion either, so many kids have signed up for after-school religious studies. Nonetheless, we get a day off for most holy days in Christianity and Islam. Best of both worlds. ;)

phuckphace
August 27th, 2016, 09:22 AM
...brainwash...

top kek he uses this term to malign conservatives and MEANWHILE IN EUROPE the Left is throwing people in jail for hurting others' feelings and forcefully removing children from the homes of parents who teach them their doubleplusungood beliefs. sorry buddy but you outta do something about that giant sequoia before you give me shit about my speck of sawdust.

also mega-lol at being equally triggered by prayer in school and full-on theocracy. "what's with Christians and their brainwashing" he says as Muslim radicals flood Europe

:lol3:

Bleid
August 27th, 2016, 09:45 AM
Ive said in another thread that your allowed to believe in the fictional characters you want

Claiming that something does not exist without any justification for the claim.

If that's not faith, I don't know what is.

This thread started with an overflow of rhetoric like the above. I'd be quite interested to see you provide a substantial argument pertaining to the title, rather than unjustified opinions of which beliefs are correct or not.

Porpoise101
August 27th, 2016, 09:46 AM
I also like separation of church and state. This makes it so these two entities do not conflict as much. Look at the past and you see that the political systems have always been fighting with the ecclesiastical ones. By separating them, they do not fight as much. The only times they do fight is when one side wishes to infringe upon the other.

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 09:47 AM
Most countries of the world are secular states,
I don't think this is true... can you provide a source?
[QUOTE=PlasmaHam;3424672] I'm fine with separation of church and state, but once you get to the point where you won't even consider religious ideas because of their status, then you've crossed the line.
Who is 'you'? Do you mean me personally?
We shouldn't not consider ideas based upon who conceived them, but of their merit. Lets take the Christian principle of equality, compared to the mainly secular idea of slavery during early 1800s America. Which idea is clearly superior, and which one should be chosen? Equality is obviously the answer, and whether or not that is religiously based should not be considered.
Of course buddy!!
But it will mainly be extremists who will be bothered right?
Yes and no, a christmas cup became a national issue with it being dubbed a sign of the 'war on Christianity'.

Anyway as a whole most states are secular but being completely neutral is just not possible. There will always be people who feel their personal rights infringed in one way or other. So how could you put complete neutrality into practice without hurting certain groups?
Groups will always be hurt buddy!! There will always be religious groups that want laws enforcing their religious beliefs and kids to be taught their religion is fact in schools :)


As for schools there should be classes about religion but not about one religion and how this one is right and others are wrong. Kids should have to learn to look at all religions from a neutral objective point of few. They should learn about the basic believes of all those religions about their history and development etc.
This should not only include the large world religions but also more specific things like Wicca or Voodoo for example...and of course kids should learn what Atheism and Agnosticism and things like that really mean and maybe basics about Philosophy.
This would be a key factor to grow up more open minded and less prejudiced.

Science classes should of course include evolution theories and all what belongs there cuz that's part of basic knowledge.

Religion per se is private. So personal beliefs don't belong in schools or state run places.
I agree with all of this :)

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 11:31 AM
I am not just talking about extremists buddy and I was more thinking should religion be taught as fact in schools? Should evolution be taught in science class? Whether a religious family should raise their family to be religious is a more complex issue :)

If you can scientifically prove something it belongs in the science class. Teaching religion in schools as facts would be like teaching that 1+1=4

So there is something wrong with showing children morals that could be found sometimes only through the Bible or other religious texts? If anything, it helps them become a better person and doesn't "brainwash" them like there's something wrong about believing in an ultimate being.

What's moral about a mass murderer with a rage problem named God?

What's the difference between a cult brainwashing people into crazy shit to get money from them and teaching religion to kids as facts?

Drewboyy
August 27th, 2016, 01:59 PM
Morals like respecting elders and being an honest person? Yeah do teach that but that can be taught in a secular school with out relating it to a specific religion.



Example? I am sure they can be taught these morals without the religious relation.

There is nothing wrong with believing in it but children suck up info as they try to make sense of the world and if there is a school telling them a specific skygod is true and to oppose science then I do see that as harmful and brainwashing.


Wonder why... xD If you believe your skygod is real then why do kids need to be brainwashed to believe in him?

This is unrelated and of course everyone should be allowed to worship who they want to, that is a benefit of a secular state.

Examples? For christianity at least- Like someone paying the ultimate price just so you can go into heaven if you do good and have faith in him? (Parents do it all the time with the "I pay for your food and put a roof over your head so you should do your chores") Or the 10 commandments which are basic laws that everyone should follow plus rules on how to have faith towards someone who loves back unconditionally? There are tons of lessons that are taught and the stories make it easier for children to understand.


If there is nothing wrong with believing in it, then why is it a problem that children do too? Based on that thinking, teaching kids that the Big Bang and Evolution *theories* are fact is just as bad.

If you can scientifically prove something it belongs in the science class. Teaching religion in schools as facts would be like teaching that 1+1=4

What's moral about a mass murderer with a rage problem named God?

What's the difference between a cult brainwashing people into crazy shit to get money from them and teaching religion to kids as facts?

Are you saying God is a mass murderer with a rage problem?

There is nothing wrong with cults brainwashing people into crazy shit as long as people don't do anything illegal, then there is something wrong with it.

Leprous
August 27th, 2016, 02:49 PM
Drewboy "There is nothing wrong with cults brainwashing people aslong as they don't do illegal shit"

So you're saying Christianity is a cult?

I personally think that politics should never be allowed to be influenced by religion, for example the abortian law (happened in Belgium so yeah). People shouldn't make political decisions based on their religion, but based on their purpose and the value for the citizens.

EuRo
August 27th, 2016, 04:58 PM
TL: DR: Laws should be secular, but people shouldn't be forced to believe or not believe.

For as long as we've been around, religion has been prominent. Even today, many people are religious. Many people do things because of their religion, good and bad. Unlike in the past and in some other countries, we are free to believe in what we wish in the United States, and that's good. It is good that people are free to believe that there is a god or that there is none or that a god has four arms and six legs and horns. The option to believe in a higher power should be a human right, and it is unfair to deprive people of their free will.

Now personally, I am atheist and believe in no god. In my perfect world, everyone would be secular and would work to further mankind and science and knowledge. It isn't a perfect world, though, and there are others that share different opinions and views. They should be free to have those views.

Now I'll get to the point: I think that the state shouldn't have to have people in it that are all secular, but I think that it should pass only secular laws. It is only fair in the case that a Christian-based law might contradict Jewish beliefs, etc.

Drewboyy
August 27th, 2016, 05:12 PM
[QUOTE=The Special One;3424924][MENTION=75676]
So you're saying Christianity is a cult?
/QUOTE]

Lmao no, someone was comparing "cults brainwashing people into crazy shit to get money from them" with teaching religion as fact in school. So I said there is nothing wrong with either as long as nothing illegal gets "instilled" in them.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 05:38 PM
Are you saying God is a mass murderer with a rage problem?

In the old testament yes

There is nothing wrong with cults brainwashing people into crazy shit as long as people don't do anything illegal, then there is something wrong with it.

But they do something illegal its called fraud.

Arkansasguy
August 27th, 2016, 08:26 PM
Heyyy so I have noticed there have been a few people debating this, me included, sooo I thought we should have a thread for it!

I think we should have a secular state!!:)

If you believe in a God, why do you feel that the only way people would believe in him is if you brainwash them as children?

You are conflating two logically distinct issues.

First of all, do you acknowledge (at least for the sake of argument) that God exists and that some particular religion X was established by him as the mode by which he wants people to worship him?

Uniquemind
August 27th, 2016, 08:43 PM
Also I'm gonna be a complete monkey wrench in this discussion to point out that:

"Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it "wrong", and vice versa for what is legal".


Just look at the double standard of behavior when it comes to those with lots of $, versus those who have less in terms of who has more influence in society.

--

In that backdrop, you have to understand that religion(s), not only cause problems with it's own consistency, but when you start mixing various ones to try to coexist, on top of a separation of secular government vs pockets of non-secularism, it becomes a mess.

There is this 3rd category that forces everyone to mingle and that is the "religion" of commerce.

Since those who are faithful, haven't been able to self-sustain their existence by supernatural divine prayer power, you get weird situations and debates regarding "religious rights within a business context".

It's very very confusing, and it suggests to me we have to make some kind of policy to best separate the two, without pissing any one group off.

On the secular side, you've got to have arbitrary laws or rules that define what is or isn't offensive or breach of someone's religious rights within a public context.

My suggestion is to create a scale that measures an action and it's ripple effect upon others.
If the ripple is small and pertains only to that person, then they can have that religious-faith decision.

If it's something that affects a broader concept (like vaccine herd immunity) then in some cases due to public risk, the burden should be placed with the person requesting specialized circumstances OR if they insist on mingling with the public despite posing a danger to it, they should conform.

Drewboyy
August 27th, 2016, 08:51 PM
In the old testament yes



But they do something illegal its called fraud.


If you actually believe in the god in the old testament, you would believe god is good and can't do anything wrong. Everyone has sinned, and the punishment for sinning is death. This is just one thing that's impossible to debate between believers and non-believers.

And if they do something that is illegal then there is a major difference between teaching kids the word of god and cults "brainwashing people into crazy shit for money"

ThisBougieLife
August 27th, 2016, 09:20 PM
Society should be secular in that no one religion should serve as the basis for law (i.e. the opposite of a theocracy, like that of Saudi Arabia, where the law is derived from religious texts and there is no separation of the sacred and the secular). This I believe is stipulated in the 1st Amendment. This also marks a significant difference between religions like Christianity (that have "render unto Caesar" principle) and Islam (where the state is necessarily religious). Society cannot be completely secular in that religion will inevitably have some influence on the way people behave and the way lawmakers and politicians act (for example, many anti-abortion laws are rooted in religious opposition to abortion). This can never be truly done away with and does not need to be, as long as it does not cross the line into forcing religious beliefs on the populace.

As for parents teaching their own children their religion--ultimately I believe children should be free to make their own decisions regarding religious beliefs, as many do when they come of age. It's natural for parents, however (religious or not) to want to instill their own beliefs in their child, but they should understand that at some point that child may reject what they were taught for another persuasion. We naturally want to pass on what it is important and meaningful to us to our children and I do not blame parents for doing so. But many people come into religion (or non-belief) later in life; it isn't something that must needs be taught to young children anyhow. It is not necessary for religion to be acquired this way, in other words.

As for schools teaching it, well, unless you are a private religious institution, you cannot teach one religion as fact in school. You can teach about religions (i.e. you may show students what certain religions teach and what their followers believe) but you cannot teach public school children which religion is "correct". It is not the function of a public school to enforce religious adherence, but a public school may provide knowledge of religions and their tenets.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 09:43 PM
If you actually believe in the god in the old testament, you would believe god is good and can't do anything wrong. Everyone has sinned, and the punishment for sinning is death. This is just one thing that's impossible to debate between believers and non-believers.

And if they do something that is illegal then there is a major difference between teaching kids the word of god and cults "brainwashing people into crazy shit for money"

God killed thousands of people in the old testament, even if the people he killed were sinning its not a reason to kill anyone, even for a God.

A religion that worship a God who is drowning every living thing on earth just to get at the few humans he's mad at, and someone who come out one day and announce he talk to aliens and they will save you from the end of the world only if you give me everything you own, they are both harmfull and immoral.

Religions do illegal stuff too, like covering up rapes done by catholic priest, but you have no problem to teach kids that religion and bring them to church, and having sex with young kids and having the company you work for covering it up is alot worst than taking advantage of stupid people to get money from them

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 09:47 PM
You are conflating two logically distinct issues.

First of all, do you acknowledge (at least for the sake of argument) that God exists and that some particular religion X was established by him as the mode by which he wants people to worship him?
They are no two distinct issues, there are people that want public schools to endorse a particular religion and not teach stuff like evolution.

No I do not acknowledge that.

ThisBougieLife
August 27th, 2016, 09:53 PM
They are no two distinct issues, there are people that want public schools to endorse a particular religion and not teach stuff like evolution.

No I do not acknowledge that.

The idea that public schools should not teach religious doctrine as fact is not quite the same as the idea that the state should be secular.

At the same time it always baffles me that some religious folks want religion taught in public schools (i.e. creationism or else); it should be the function of the parents and church to do this. If they truly believe evolution is false, then learning about it will not remove their religious beliefs. Evolution should be taught in science class because it is science; creation myths are not (this of course presents another dilemma; which creation story should be taught? The one that's the most popular? That doesn't seem valid to me). At the same time it doesn't need to be taught in the way of "the religious explanation is BS". Furthermore, there are many people who believe in God and believe that evolution is valid science.

Your question on the other hand seemed to be about teaching children religion (and did not specify this being done in public schools). The state can be secular at the same time that children learn their religion as children (just not from the public schools).

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 09:58 PM
Examples? For christianity at least- Like someone paying the ultimate price just so you can go into heaven if you do good and have faith in him? (Parents do it all the time with the "I pay for your food and put a roof over your head so you should do your chores") Or the 10 commandments which are basic laws that everyone should follow plus rules on how to have faith towards someone who loves back unconditionally? There are tons of lessons that are taught and the stories make it easier for children to understand.

Teach kids morals like don't steal ect eith out the relation to a skygod.

There is nothing wrong with believing in fictional characters but when you brainwash kids so they believe in them too then I do see it is harmful.

Religious people go through a lot of distress converting to atheism, it could hold the kids back in their future, I do not think it is moral to have kids living their life in fear a God won't like it and sent them to hell. What if they're gay and on top of how stressful it is coming out normally, imagine that in a religious household. Also I think telling children to ignore the best ideas of our time in favour or an old book with no evidence is bad for their intelligence.

So yeah brainwashing kids is bad.


If there is nothing wrong with believing in it, then why is it a problem that children do too? Based on that thinking, teaching kids that the Big Bang and Evolution *theories* are fact is just as bad.

Please don't be the guy that thinks he disproved science because he called evolution a theory.

A scientific theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) is a well-substantiated explanation. That's what it means in science.

To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation
Your question on the other hand seemed to be about teaching children religion (and did not specify this being done in public schools). The state can be secular at the same time that children learn their religion as children (just not from the public schools).
I know what secularism is, I was focusing in one the schools and lawmakers making laws based on religion.

Uniquemind
August 27th, 2016, 10:03 PM
God killed thousands of people in the old testament, even if the people he killed were sinning its not a reason to kill anyone, even for a God.

A religion that worship a God who is drowning every living thing on earth just to get at the few humans he's mad at, and someone who come out one day and announce he talk to aliens and they will save you from the end of the world only if you give me everything you own, they are both harmfull and immoral.

Religions do illegal stuff too, like covering up rapes done by catholic priest, but you have no problem to teach kids that religion and bring them to church, and having sex with young kids and having the company you work for covering it up is alot worst than taking advantage of stupid people to get money from them

To be fair you're mixing up what scripture says, and what humans have done with behavior despite what scripture says.

There's a degree of separation you need to acknowledge between the two.

ThisBougieLife
August 27th, 2016, 10:04 PM
Flapjack In that case, then, I would say that it's impossible to avoid the influence of religion on law. But law cannot be directly taken from religion. I.e. your religious beliefs may influence you to be opposed to the death penalty, but you could not make a law saying that all must be in church on Sundays (a law like this could exist in a hypothetical Christian theocracy). Public schools on the other hand I already mentioned in my first reply, but they must remain neutral on religious beliefs; though they can teach about them, they must teach children what to believe.

To be fair you're mixing up what scripture says, and what humans have done with behavior despite what scripture says.

There's a degree of separation you need to acknowledge between the two.

This is a bit of an aside, but it's interesting that so many are willing to acknowledge this "degree of separation" in Christianity (or Judaism), but in criticizing Islam, the immediate response from many in the West is "Muslims are violent because their scriptures portray violence".

Drewboyy
August 27th, 2016, 10:43 PM
God killed thousands of people in the old testament, even if the people he killed were sinning its not a reason to kill anyone, even for a God.

A religion that worship a God who is drowning every living thing on earth just to get at the few humans he's mad at, and someone who come out one day and announce he talk to aliens and they will save you from the end of the world only if you give me everything you own, they are both harmfull and immoral.

Religions do illegal stuff too, like covering up rapes done by catholic priest, but you have no problem to teach kids that religion and bring them to church, and having sex with young kids and having the company you work for covering it up is alot worst than taking advantage of stupid people to get money from them

Evil overcame the world and god judged them, this isn't a debatable topic if you refuse to understand or believe why it happened. I already said why it's not a problem to the people who believe in the Old Testament.

And the religion itself says nothing about raping children, people decide to do it and the people with power cover it up to save themselves-it's human nature. .

Flapjack

Kids want to impress their parents and do good, people who believe in gods want him to accept them and they do good and follow the gods commands. It does give kids more reason to act in all the right ways.
And saying brainwashing is the children into believing in "sky gods" is a bad thing (I don't think it's brainwashing but for the sake of this) as it it's a fact. Bottom line there is nothing wrong with being pushed into the belief of anything as long as it doesn't harm them, and they can always switch if they reaslize they don't want it in their lives anymore.
Which leads into making gay people who are coming out being harder. This is just a reaction that anyone can get over. If you actually think that you are gay, then it's up to you to do whatever you want with that. And if the people surrounding you don't accept it, too bad. That's life, I hate to say it but that's the same for everything similar in this world. Imagine someone growing up in a household *completely separated from religion* wanting to say grace at the dinner table but they are afraid that they'll get in trouble or if a non-vegan surrounded by vegans wants to eat bacon for lunch.

I'm not the person who is disproving science, whenever my science teachers (I'be been in public school my whole life FYI) talk about the Big Bang Theory or the theories of evolution they say that you don't have to believe this, but you need to know it for the tests because it is not a scientific fact yet until it can be replicated in a lab. God creating the universe is just as replicable in a laboratory as the Big Bang theory.
ThisBougieLife

The difference is the Bible may have violence in it, but it doesn't accept it's followers carrying out that violence. The Quran has violence AND wants its followers to carry out tons of violence.

Flapjack
August 27th, 2016, 11:31 PM
Evil overcame the world and god judged them, this isn't a debatable topic if you refuse to understand or believe why it happened. I already said why it's not a problem to the people who believe in the Old Testament.
This isn't a debate about what skygod done what.

Kids want to impress their parents and do good, people who believe in gods want him to accept them and they do good and follow the gods commands. It does give kids more reason to act in all the right ways.

Children should be taught to do nice things because it is the right thing to do and can have a positive impact on society and will be good for them. Not to please fictional characters and to avoid being sent to hell to burn forever by the all forgiving skygod.

And saying brainwashing is the children into believing in "sky gods" is a bad thing (I don't think it's brainwashing but for the sake of this) as it it's a fact. Bottom line there is nothing wrong with being pushed into the belief of anything as long as it doesn't harm them, and they can always switch if they reaslize they don't want it in their lives anymore.

There is sooo many things with being pushed into the belief of God!!

I said this earlier:
Religious people go through a lot of distress converting to atheism, it could hold the kids back in their future, I do not think it is moral to have kids living their life in fear a God won't like it and sent them to hell. What if they're gay and on top of how stressful it is coming out normally, imagine that in a religious household. Also I think telling children to ignore the best ideas of our time in favour or an old book with no evidence is bad for their intelligence.

If you believe in Mr Skygod, why do you think most people only believe in him when they are brainwashed from the day they're born?

When a child grows up told to make his own beliefs based on facts and evidence, not many believe in skygods.

I'm not the person who is disproving science, whenever my science teachers (I'be been in public school my whole life FYI) talk about the Big Bang Theory or the theories of evolution they say that you don't have to believe this, but you need to know it for the tests because it is not a scientific fact yet until it can be replicated in a lab. God creating the universe is just as replicable in a laboratory as the Big Bang theory.

Well that is showing your teacher is either not very good or showing she is pushing her religion by denying the facts.

How would you replicate God creating the universe?

The big bang theory has it's issues and there are 100s of different theories, I have my own theories after talking to my physics teacher about a few of them but you're missing the point.

The big bang theory may not be the start of the universe, it might just have been a crazy big explosion and the start of the universe happened way before. The point is that we go in looking for evidence to find what caused the universe.

What evidence is there for skygods?

Children should be taught in schools facts.

Arkansasguy
August 27th, 2016, 11:51 PM
They are no two distinct issues, there are people that want public schools to endorse a particular religion and not teach stuff like evolution.

And now you've introduced yet another only semi-related topic.

Stick to one point.

No I do not acknowledge that.

Then you're just complaining that there are people who believe in religions. Tough crap.

Flapjack
August 28th, 2016, 12:04 AM
And now you've introduced yet another only semi-related topic.

Stick to one point.

Nooo I made the thread with this in mind? xD

Then you're just complaining that there are people who believe in religions. Tough crap.
No I'm not... xD

I think you're confused dude xD

Right do you want the state to be secular and why?

DriveAlive
August 28th, 2016, 12:10 AM
I am not quite sure your point. Most of our society is fairly secular. People are allowed to believe in God and raise their families any way they see fit, but so are we allowed to be atheists and talk about it publically. It is not taught in public schools and many people are actually atheists.

Flapjack
August 28th, 2016, 12:18 AM
I am not quite sure your point. Most of our society is fairly secular. People are allowed to believe in God and raise their families any way they see fit, but so are we allowed to be atheists and talk about it publically. It is not taught in public schools and many people are actually atheists.
There are more countries than the USA and there seems to be many Americans that want creationism taught in schools:)

I also believe that there are still US schools that still teach creationism (http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-1515717148) :)

Dalcourt
August 28th, 2016, 12:42 AM
There are more countries than the USA and there seems to be many Americans that want creationism taught in schools:)

I also believe that there are still US schools that still teach creationism (http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-1515717148) :)
I don't really get what this map is about but I live in one of those heavy dotted states and been to tons of different schools there and was never taught creationism and just know about one teacher trying this somewhere here and there was an uproar amongst the parents.

And if parents believe in creationism they will have the kids thought it in Sunday school or wherever and protest about science classes. It's a problem that will always persist as long as there is religious freedom...it's the same like the endless headscarf disussion for Muslim women.

To avoid all those problems the state wouldn't have to be secular but also outlaw all forms of religion and religious expression in people's private life.

What I wanted to ask is.
How's these things in Britain btw. your monarch (even if the queen is just doing representative work and has no political influence) is head of state but same time head of the Anglican church or so. As Henry VIII wanted to be free from the Church in Rome. So is Britain secular or not? Strictly speaking I mean.

Flapjack
August 28th, 2016, 01:36 AM
And if parents believe in creationism they will have the kids thought it in Sunday school or wherever and protest about science classes. It's a problem that will always persist as long as there is religious freedom...it's the same like the endless headscarf disussion for Muslim women.

To avoid all those problems the state wouldn't have to be secular but also outlaw all forms of religion and religious expression in people's private life.

Outlawing religious expression won't stop it buddy and parents should be free to raise their child how they like, I don't think it is right but they have that right.

Having a secular state with children being educated about religion but not having the schools endorse a religion I personally think is the right thing to do with the least problems :)


What I wanted to ask is.
How's these things in Britain btw. your monarch (even if the queen is just doing representative work and has no political influence) is head of state but same time head of the Anglican church or so. As Henry VIII wanted to be free from the Church in Rome. So is Britain secular or not? Strictly speaking I mean.
Technically I think Britian is not secular because of the queen but in practical terms I think it gets pretty close. Britain is a diverse country with loads of different religions with big followings.

There are state funded faith schools however and I don't agree with that. The normal schools however are very good at educating about the different religions and teaching evolution and stuff as fact :) They do however still make kids sing Christian songs in primary school which really should go.

Dalcourt
August 28th, 2016, 01:51 AM
Outlawing religious expression won't stop it buddy and parents should be free to raise their child how they like, I don't think it is right but they have that right.

Having a secular state with children being educated about religion but not having the schools endorse a religion I personally think is the right thing to do with the least problems :)


Technically I think Britian is not secular because of the queen but in practical terms I think it gets pretty close. Britain is a diverse country with loads of different religions with big followings.

There are state funded faith schools however and I don't agree with that. The normal schools however are very good at educating about the different religions and teaching evolution and stuff as fact :) They do however still make kids sing Christian songs in primary school which really should go.

Thanks that pretty much answered it.

With schools and what to allow is always very tricky...so for example officially you aren't really allowed to use expression like Merry Christmas you should say Happy Holidays.
So to make this right you should forbid Christmas or Easter holidays and stuff like that and just lets stay people home from work or school on political holidays and not on Christian or other religious feasts.
No decorations allowed for any of those of course.

You should outlaw kosher or halal food in school cafeterias as we offer in some places cuz paying attention to what people eat due to religious beliefs in a state run place wouldn't also be secular, right?

And well I guess we would need a million of laws to cater for all of this.

Like should teachers or officials who work in public places be allowed to use expressions like Oh Lord or Allah or whatever to express themselves...it's just a figure of speach but has religious connotations so should it be allowed that they use it or no?

Uniquemind
August 28th, 2016, 04:01 AM
Flapjack In that case, then, I would say that it's impossible to avoid the influence of religion on law. But law cannot be directly taken from religion. I.e. your religious beliefs may influence you to be opposed to the death penalty, but you could not make a law saying that all must be in church on Sundays (a law like this could exist in a hypothetical Christian theocracy). Public schools on the other hand I already mentioned in my first reply, but they must remain neutral on religious beliefs; though they can teach about them, they must teach children what to believe.



This is a bit of an aside, but it's interesting that so many are willing to acknowledge this "degree of separation" in Christianity (or Judaism), but in criticizing Islam, the immediate response from many in the West is "Muslims are violent because their scriptures portray violence".

Well for them sharia law exists, and part of those societal influences in my opinion are the fact that the west already adopts separation between church and state, while the Middle East does not, women don't enjoy equal rights, and their holy book uses less parable stories and much more 1st person commandment style writing. There is less to derive, and I've been told it reads very linearly, but no less thought provoking, just less free-flowing thought.

Arkansasguy
August 28th, 2016, 07:20 AM
Nooo I made the thread with this in mind? xD

That does not change anything.

No I'm not... xD

I think you're confused dude xD

It might be helpful if you familiarized yourself with logic.

You asked the question of religious believers, whether the state should be secular. IOW, you asked whether it follows from the premise that God exists and some particular religion is true, that the state should be non-secular. If you're rejecting that premise outright then there's no discussion to be had, as obviously an atheist would support secularism.

Right do you want the state to be secular and why?

Obviously.

ThisBougieLife
August 28th, 2016, 10:46 AM
Thanks that pretty much answered it.

With schools and what to allow is always very tricky...so for example officially you aren't really allowed to use expression like Merry Christmas you should say Happy Holidays.
So to make this right you should forbid Christmas or Easter holidays and stuff like that and just lets stay people home from work or school on political holidays and not on Christian or other religious feasts.
No decorations allowed for any of those of course.

You should outlaw kosher or halal food in school cafeterias as we offer in some places cuz paying attention to what people eat due to religious beliefs in a state run place wouldn't also be secular, right?

And well I guess we would need a million of laws to cater for all of this.

Like should teachers or officials who work in public places be allowed to use expressions like Oh Lord or Allah or whatever to express themselves...it's just a figure of speach but has religious connotations so should it be allowed that they use it or no?

And this is where you get into the difference between religious influence vs. religious enforcement.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. It isn't that everything that even slightly relates to religion must be purged from public schools; it's that religion cannot itself be taught to students. But that doesn't mean all references to religion need to be outlawed. People should still be allowed to say Merry Christmas or say "My God" or whatever...these are not forcing religion on students the way asking everyone in your class to participate in a Christian prayer (or to face Mecca and pray) would be.

Vlerchan
August 28th, 2016, 11:04 AM
As for schools teaching it, well, unless you are a private religious institution, you cannot teach one religion as fact in school.
How does the state, which is supposed to be separated from the realm of religion, hope to define what a religion is for the purpose of such restrictions, without encroaching on the domain of the religion themselves?

What is a 'Catholic' school, for example?

Dalcourt
August 28th, 2016, 11:05 AM
And this is where you get into the difference between religious influence vs. religious enforcement.

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. It isn't that everything that even slightly relates to religion must be purged from public schools; it's that religion cannot itself be taught to students. But that doesn't mean all references to religion need to be outlawed. People should still be allowed to say Merry Christmas or say "My God" or whatever...these are not forcing religion on students the way asking everyone in your class to participate in a Christian prayer (or to face Mecca and pray) would be.

I don't make it complicated cuz honestly I couldn't care less about anyone's religious beliefs.
Right now I'm on my way to attend service with my friend in a Church and this denomination is like the opposite of what i was taught to believe in but I'm not bothered since I'm doing it for a friend.

I just showed with asking for those extreme things where this all leads.
And if you allow one thing and forbid the other these things happen and are already happening.
That's why I feel kids should be taught about religion not religion.

Being completely secular doesn't work cuz religious beliefs are way to much interwoven in our society.
I showed an example in a link in my first post in this thread.
The mayor wanted to act according tonthe fact that the state is secular but still she was blamed for doing wrong and was just applauded by Nazi like groups....this is really sad and shows that even all those liberal groups don't stand to their word.
And therefore I feel that those kind of discussions are always ridiculous.

ThisBougieLife
August 28th, 2016, 11:17 AM
In that case, then we agree. :) "Teaching about religion" is what I've been advocating this whole time. You cannot make something 100% secular in that all religious influence will be completely gone (as you say, it's too ingrained in our society and it isn't even a goal of mine anyway), but you can remain as neutral as possible on religion when you're in a position like that of public school teacher.

Living For Love
August 28th, 2016, 12:35 PM
The state should be secular, yes, but I don't see why shouldn't we teach religion in public schools, particularly the religion the majority of a certain country's population believes in. If Islam was the predominant religion here, I'd feel obliged to learn about it (at least the basic principles) despite having other beliefs, or even if I didn't have any at all. It should be schools duty to provide that kind of education to children. I'm Christian but I personally like to learn about other religions. I've been taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions at school, and I'm always open to learn more about them. I've read some passages of the Quran as well. People can educate without brainwashing children.

Drewboyy
August 28th, 2016, 07:12 PM
Children should be taught to do nice things because it is the right thing to do and can have a positive impact on society and will be good for them. Not to please fictional characters and to avoid being sent to hell to burn forever by the all forgiving skygod.

There is sooo many things with being pushed into the belief of God!!

I said this earlier:
.

If you believe in Mr Skygod, why do you think most people only believe in him when they are brainwashed from the day they're born?

When a child grows up told to make his own beliefs based on facts and evidence, not many believe in skygods.

Well that is showing your teacher is either not very good or showing she is pushing her religion by denying the facts.

How would you replicate God creating the universe?

The big bang theory has it's issues and there are 100s of different theories, I have my own theories after talking to my physics teacher about a few of them but you're missing the point.

The big bang theory may not be the start of the universe, it might just have been a crazy big explosion and the start of the universe happened way before. The point is that we go in looking for evidence to find what caused the universe.

What evidence is there for skygods?

Children should be taught in schools facts.

Children believing in God and children believing in anything else not proven is exactly the same thing. And they are both not even close to brainwashing either.

Atheists suddenly become religious very often and people who follow one religion change religions just as much. In fact, around the high school age (the age where kids become aware of the world around them and form facts and arguments by themselves), Catholics (confirmation), the Jewish (Bat Mitzvah) and probably a lot of other religions that I don't know the rules of gives kids a chance to accept that religion or not.

And my past teachers were very good, they all teach an IB class. They don't deny facts either- because they aren't facts. You say "it may not have started the universe", "it might have just been a...". Those are maybe words because none of it is proven.

The evidence for a God is the same for the evidence of a civilization. Everything around us is the handiwork of God.

Children should be taught whatever they need to further a society in schools. Catholic schools around me who take the State-given "Regents exams" have biology, and physics, and earth science classes where they teach the different evolution theories and Big Bang Theories. A lot of them also have religion class, where they learn about what every religion believes in. And they all have a Catholic class where they learn the word of god and pray.

Uniquemind
August 29th, 2016, 01:51 AM
The state should be secular, yes, but I don't see why shouldn't we teach religion in public schools, particularly the religion the majority of a certain country's population believes in. If Islam was the predominant religion here, I'd feel obliged to learn about it (at least the basic principles) despite having other beliefs, or even if I didn't have any at all. It should be schools duty to provide that kind of education to children. I'm Christian but I personally like to learn about other religions. I've been taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions at school, and I'm always open to learn more about them. I've read some passages of the Quran as well. People can educate without brainwashing children.

It's necessary too to understand ancient societies from a history classes's standpoint as well.

Can't be separated fully or to the level the thread's title is implying.

candorgen
August 30th, 2016, 06:43 PM
If you believe in a God, why do you feel that the only way people would believe in him is if you brainwash them as children?

In fairness, the most that these words will do is start a ROTW war.


I am not just talking about extremists buddy [...]

Just as a suggestion for thought, extremism does not need to be limited to religions. You could have anti-theist extremism.


and I was more thinking should religion be taught as fact in schools? Should evolution be taught in science class?

If the theory is scientific, sure.


Isn't that two different topics really?

Yes; a state can be non-secular and not necessarily be 'brainwashing children' etc.



Of course it would be best for the state to be secular but to put this into reality is very hard as the burkini ban that was brought up in the VT chronicle showed.
So how to stay neutral then and at the same time give everyone their personal space.


When it can go too far and become anti-religious, yes.


There is no scientific evidence that supports religion, only to the contrary. So I don't think the laws should be based on something that is blatant misinformation. Just my onion.

There is scientific evidence that supports the view that no religion is based on truth? Quite the claim to make...


I think the state should be secular, but realistically that can only go so far due to a slight overlap when it comes to human behavior, customs, and expectations.

If laws are created due to inspiration from a faith based value, but also can be justified from a secular standpoint, then the latter is the reason why it exists or should exist, rather than the inspirational background from whence it was conceived. To that extent separation between secular and non-secular topics cannot go an farther.

I'm for a state that essentially means a (even very large) group of people who share a set of ideas, this set aiming to efficiently and optimally support the group physically and mentally. The physical part is much simpler than the psychological part, with arguments for and against religions helping the mind and such, but nevertheless psychological maintaining across the population in a 'common' way would be much simpler and easier to do.



I've been listening to a lot of Milo Yiannopoulos lately, and although I disagree with him and at times find him extremely offensive, he brings up some valid points of where over corrections have occurred in social expectations of various groups.

Hopefully not with Islam and such, but I digress.



Anyone should be allowed to worship whatever they want, wherever they want (even public places and govt. owned place) as long as it doesn't interfere or harm other people or force others to partake in it.

It would be impractical anyway to publicly express religious views, or at a govt area though, if it is to not interfere with anyone else.


We shouldn't not consider ideas based upon who conceived them, but of their merit. Lets take the Christian principle of equality, compared to the mainly secular idea of slavery during early 1800s America. Which idea is clearly superior, and which one should be chosen? Equality is obviously the answer, and whether or not that is religiously based should not be considered.

I agree apart from the Christian principle of equality which I haven't heard of (though you can show it to me)- do you mean that every person is born as equals with personal rights?



Anyway as a whole most states are secular but being completely neutral is just not possible. There will always be people who feel their personal rights infringed in one way or other. So how could you put complete neutrality into practice without hurting certain groups?

Ideal, but I don't think such a thing is realistically possible, if any religious group wants their perspective to be followed by a secular state. If the state is occupied with the continuation of the existence of everyone within it, it shouldn't be expected by any religious group to imply a stance for or against a perspective on what existence means and what's 'behind' existence. The state is not at fault if a group does not see this, it is the group that is unjustified.

If religious groups have a view that their religion needs to be practiced on a state level, then a secular state is not for them, and vice versa. I'm all for a secular state, but I don't see it as a 'one size fits all' situation at all. I wonder if humanity as a whole holds any idea in common between every person.



As for schools there should be classes about religion but not about one religion and how this one is right and others are wrong. Kids should have to learn to look at all religions from a neutral objective point of few.

A purely descriptive account, yes. Of course, some will argue that it is impossible to be impartial for either theoretical or practical reasons, but it can be approximated.



I can watch or listen because of terrible rural broadband.

I thought you were in the city. :P (My mistake by presuming so.)


"what's with Christians and their brainwashing" he says as Muslim radicals flood Europe

Whatever about alleged double standards, neither religion is effectively innocent.


If you can scientifically prove something it belongs in the science class. Teaching religion in schools as facts would be like teaching that 1+1=4

What's moral about a mass murderer with a rage problem named God?

What's the difference between a cult brainwashing people into crazy shit to get money from them and teaching religion to kids as facts?

The major risk here is being in favour of secularism but while also while talking in an anti-religious way. Secularism and anti-religious practice are very different things; one blending into the other is dangerous.


People shouldn't make political decisions based on their religion, but based on their purpose and the value for the citizens.

A lot of the opposite of this has been all over the place in politics; good luck wiping that pandemic.



First of all, do you acknowledge (at least for the sake of argument) that God exists and that some particular religion X was established by him as the mode by which he wants people to worship him?

If you're taking this route to again argue that indifference equates to opposition...



"Just because something is illegal, doesn't make it "wrong", and vice versa for what is legal".

Just look at the double standard of behavior when it comes to those with lots of $, versus those who have less in terms of who has more influence in society.

--

In that backdrop, you have to understand that religion(s), not only cause problems with it's own consistency, but when you start mixing various ones to try to coexist, on top of a separation of secular government vs pockets of non-secularism, it becomes a mess.

There is this 3rd category that forces everyone to mingle and that is the "religion" of commerce.

Since those who are faithful, haven't been able to self-sustain their existence by supernatural divine prayer power, you get weird situations and debates regarding "religious rights within a business context".

It's very very confusing, and it suggests to me we have to make some kind of policy to best separate the two, without pissing any one group off.

On the secular side, you've got to have arbitrary laws or rules that define what is or isn't offensive or breach of someone's religious rights within a public context.

[...]

If it's something that affects a broader concept (like vaccine herd immunity) then in some cases due to public risk, the burden should be placed with the person requesting specialized circumstances OR if they insist on mingling with the public despite posing a danger to it, they should conform.

It is a big mess; the mess is not limited to religion at all though, it manifests in parts of religious practice though, yes.



My suggestion is to create a scale that measures an action and it's ripple effect upon others.
If the ripple is small and pertains only to that person, then they can have that religious-faith decision.

How would you quantify the scale? I get the idea, but there are a lot of factors here.


I am not quite sure your point. Most of our society is fairly secular. People are allowed to believe in God and raise their families any way they see fit, but so are we allowed to be atheists and talk about it publically. It is not taught in public schools and many people are actually atheists.

Yet major proportions of e.g. the US govt are of people with a powerful religious mindset; such mindsets definitely affect how they perform their job as a politician. Right, the US is not a theocracy, but many parts of it vigorously hold onto religion. The oath of allegiance makes reference to God, which is at least apparently a clear religious message.

If you are saying that there is enough secularism around that nothing more needs to be done with it, I don't follow that same view, for that ^ .



You asked the question of religious believers, whether the state should be secular. IOW, you asked whether it follows from the premise that God exists and some particular religion is true, that the state should be non-secular. If you're rejecting that premise outright then there's no discussion to be had, as obviously an atheist would support secularism.

Perhaps Flapjack was more wanting to know the various positions of people here on state secularism, rather than stirring the pot with theists who want a non-secular state (I could be wrong though).

Also, theists don't necessarily advocate for a non-secular state; atheists or anti-theists also don't necessarily advocate for a secular state. It is quite possible that non-theists out there are for a non-secular state, because of how it may help as a mental strategy for the population in some 'dark' global environment. Advocating could be for pragmatic reasons, not only for direct belief.

Kawaii Bean
August 30th, 2016, 08:51 PM
Clearly, not all children growing up around religion were "brainwashed" because you have Atheists and Agnostics. No one should force religion on anybody at any age. People who are religious are religious by choice, not because their family made them to be that way. And by choice I mean they looked into whatever religion and if they linked with it, they stood with it.

jamie_n5
August 31st, 2016, 11:13 AM
I am a firm supporter of the separation of church and state. I also support freedom of speech. We all should be able to express our opinions and beliefs.

mattsmith48
August 31st, 2016, 01:26 PM
The major risk here is being in favour of secularism but while also while talking in an anti-religious way. Secularism and anti-religious practice are very different things; one blending into the other is dangerous.

I don't see why there is a risk with what I said science class is about science and anything that can't be proven scientifically as no place in the science class.

Porpoise101
September 1st, 2016, 03:57 PM
I don't see why there is a risk with what I said science class is about science and anything that can't be proven scientifically as no place in the science class.
I disagree. What about scientific ethics? These are important to consider in science class and they should be discussed even though they are not objectively "scientific". Scientists must consider ethics in practice, so students of science should do so as well. And what do you suppose should happen if some of those ethical practices coincide with religious ones? Ban it, ignore it, or keep it out? No, it should be discussed as well.

Flapjack
September 1st, 2016, 04:51 PM
I disagree. What about scientific ethics? These are important to consider in science class and they should be discussed even though they are not objectively "scientific". Scientists must consider ethics in practice, so students of science should do so as well. And what do you suppose should happen if some of those ethical practices coincide with religious ones? Ban it, ignore it, or keep it out? No, it should be discussed as well.
If an ethical practice coincides with religion then there is no issue? xD Religion has no place in a science class. Unless it is science related such as looking into evidence of skygods and religious stories.

PlasmaHam
September 1st, 2016, 05:24 PM
If an ethical practice coincides with religion then there is no issue? xD Religion has no place in a science class. Unless it is science related such as looking into evidence of skygods and religious stories.

Well, some people would still say that is religion in science class. Enforcing an ethical practice that coincides or even originates from religion is seen as religious by some people despite how common sense it may seem. This is why a purely secular society can't work. Fully prohibiting religious ideas is dangerously over controlling and many religious originated principles shape modern life.

Flapjack
September 1st, 2016, 05:33 PM
Well, some people would still say that is religion in science class. Enforcing an ethical practice that coincides or even originates from religion is seen as religious by some people despite how common sense it may seem. This is why a purely secular society can't work. Fully prohibiting religious ideas is dangerously over controlling and many religious originated principles shape modern life.
Secularism does not mean prohibiting religious ideas. It means it is not connected to religious ideas.

candorgen
September 1st, 2016, 07:42 PM
I don't see why there is a risk with what I said science class is about science and anything that can't be proven scientifically as no place in the science class.

I get you here, but what you said before was clearly making reference to religion generally, in a negative way. I didn't respond to that in any other way than that it is (as I see it) risky/dangerous to bring in anti-religious views when discussing secularism. Doing secularism properly would mean restricting having any 'pro-religious' or anti-religious ideas going around in your mind that you like, as that can and does change your angle on how you see secularism at least subconsciously. I like to think of it as cutting down on intellectual cross-contamination.

I make my point because I've seen a range of supposed secularists who range from clearly anti-religious mindsets, to pragmatists. Hope you get what I mean.


I disagree. What about scientific ethics? These are important to consider in science class and they should be discussed even though they are not objectively "scientific". Scientists must consider ethics in practice, so students of science should do so as well. And what do you suppose should happen if some of those ethical practices coincide with religious ones? Ban it, ignore it, or keep it out? No, it should be discussed as well.

I'd be for 'science ethics' being discussed in a class on philosophy rather than science class, as I'd see the science class to be only on scientific methods and scientific knowledge.


Religion has no place in a science class. Unless it is science related such as looking into evidence of skygods and religious stories.

I'm going to sneak in and suggest that there's no reason to see necessity in having a skygod / sky daddy / *insert generic nice anthropomorphic deity figure here* in every religion.

Otherwise I get what you mean; sociology sure brings religion into scientific theory and practice as example.


Well, some people would still say that is religion in science class. Enforcing an ethical practice that coincides or even originates from religion is seen as religious by some people despite how common sense it may seem.

If you're saying that science could be seen as a unique form of a religion, I still wouldn't be for melding science with other religions, as it's unique in its practice.


This is why a purely secular society can't work. Fully prohibiting religious ideas is dangerously over controlling and many religious originated principles shape modern life.

A secular state doesn't have to have contained within it a secular society.

Porpoise101
September 3rd, 2016, 12:16 PM
I'd be for 'science ethics' being discussed in a class on philosophy rather than science class, as I'd see the science class to be only on scientific methods and scientific knowledge.
I believe it is important to discuss relevant information in the same class. Let's say I am taking a biology class. It is important to learn about the ethics of animal and human experimentation in the class so that you can apply it in the class. Say after you learned that, you then could start doing dissections for your investigations. In my biology class, we had to explain the treatment and care of the animals we used in our writings.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 12:21 PM
I believe it is important to discuss relevant information in the same class. Let's say I am taking a biology class. It is important to learn about the ethics of animal and human experimentation in the class so that you can apply it in the class. Say after you learned that, you then could start doing dissections for your investigations. In my biology class, we had to explain the treatment and care of the animals we used in our writings.
What has this got to do with religion? You can have ethics without religion.

Porpoise101
September 3rd, 2016, 12:24 PM
What has this got to do with religion? You can have ethics without religion.
Ok let me give you a religious example. What about embryonic stem cell research? When learning about that, it is important to show the relevant religious viewpoint on it so that people understand why things are the way they are. Science means nothing if you don't understand why people are against certain practices.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 12:26 PM
Ok let me give you a religious example. What about embryonic stem cell research? When learning about that, it is important to show the relevant religious viewpoint on it so that people understand why things are the way they are. Science means nothing if you don't understand why people are against certain practices.
Yes I think that is different, students should be aware of why it is controversial of course. From your previous post I assumed you were suggesting students get taught, for example, stem cell research is bad because skygod said so :)

candorgen
September 4th, 2016, 02:38 PM
I believe it is important to discuss relevant information in the same class. Let's say I am taking a biology class. It is important to learn about the ethics of animal and human experimentation in the class so that you can apply it in the class. Say after you learned that, you then could start doing dissections for your investigations. In my biology class, we had to explain the treatment and care of the animals we used in our writings.

Let me suggest another system to you where science not being taught as one class, but rather as three classes with a common field. (It isn't fundamentally how I see it, as a disclaimer.) As example, if you only are interested in chemistry, then there would be chemistry history, chemistry theory and practice, and chemistry ethics/etc.

Chemistry history would be on how chemistry came about and the reasoning that different notable chemists had in forming new theories and discarding old ones.

Chemistry theory and practice would be on current chemistry theories, and doing experiments to demonstrate processes that these theories speak of.

Chemistry ethics/etc would be on what use and abuse chemistry theory and practice can do for our lives and such, etc etc.


Ok let me give you a religious example. What about embryonic stem cell research? When learning about that, it is important to show the relevant religious viewpoint on it so that people understand why things are the way they are.

What you are saying is the last class. Each class would intersect with the other two, but only where absolutely relevant.

I'm not for involving multiple aspects in only one class; for me science is essentially the scientific method, and scientific theory/knowledge. Everything else is its interaction with other topics. You'd still be doing science fine if you horribly mutilated a sentient being to see what reactions it would have. If we're going to have separated subjects, then the separation/distinction should be done properly.


Science means nothing if you don't understand why people are against certain practices.

The meaning of scientific theory and practice isn't to do with people's reaction to them, it's to do with the mental perspective behind the hypotheses and the reasoning that goes with the experiments and then the theories.

phuckphace
September 5th, 2016, 10:41 AM
Christianity is not incompatible with science anyway, despite what we're always told to the contrary including by some Christians themselves. it's far too easy to fall into the trap of assuming that all or most Christians share the views of Michael Behe and Ken Ham - it's kind of like assuming that all Muslims belong to ISIS.

there's no reason why the state can't be secular and pro-religion at the same time, in the sense that the state endorses science and defends religious freedom too.*

were I in charge, the state would be officially secular and teach only science in the public school classroom, and homeschooling/private schools would be available as an alternative for parents who disagree with this.

*within reason, of course. outright scams such as Scientology and various other cult groups would be "persecuted" all day every day

candorgen
September 5th, 2016, 11:48 AM
Christianity is not incompatible with science anyway, despite what we're always told to the contrary including by some Christians themselves. it's far too easy to fall into the trap of assuming that all or most Christians share the views of Michael Behe and Ken Ham - it's kind of like assuming that all Muslims belong to ISIS.

there's no reason why the state can't be secular and pro-religion at the same time, in the sense that the state endorses science and defends religious freedom too.*

were I in charge, the state would be officially secular and teach only science in the public school classroom, and homeschooling/private schools would be available as an alternative for parents who disagree with this.

*within reason, of course. outright scams such as Scientology and various other cult groups would be "persecuted" all day every day

I agree!

phuckphace
September 5th, 2016, 12:28 PM
given that most of Scientology is vapid rich celebs I could just nuke Hollywood and kill two birds with one stone

Cadanance00
September 5th, 2016, 07:00 PM
Actually they'd probably be better off square or triangular.

Porpoise101
September 5th, 2016, 08:27 PM
If we're going to have separated subjects, then the separation/distinction should be done properly.

With the limitations schools have with funding, there is just no way for separated subjects to become a reality. The logistics of funneling kids to all of these bite-sized classes would also be a burden on administration. Because we have these constraints, these subjects will be taught together in most classrooms.

The meaning of scientific theory and practice isn't to do with people's reaction to them, it's to do with the mental perspective behind the hypotheses and the reasoning that goes with the experiments and then the theories.

People should know the limitations to scientific theory. They should also know why people are against the way scientific investigation goes on. To me, science classes serve a dual purpose. One, to educate the general public. Two, to prepare those with more interest to go on further. If you become a cellular biologist and start using embryonic stem cells for research and don't know why some people hate you, your school didn't do a good enough job. To prepare people for the practice, you must educate them on how to conduct it.

candorgen
September 6th, 2016, 06:58 AM
With the limitations schools have with funding, there is just no way for separated subjects to become a reality. The logistics of funneling kids to all of these bite-sized classes would also be a burden on administration. Because we have these constraints, these subjects will be taught together in most classrooms.

I know that it realistically wouldn't be a thing today generally, but I suggested it nonetheless as a theoretical alternative.


People should know the limitations to scientific theory. They should also know why people are against the way scientific investigation goes on. To me, science classes serve a dual purpose. One, to educate the general public. Two, to prepare those with more interest to go on further. If you become a cellular biologist and start using embryonic stem cells for research and don't know why some people hate you, your school didn't do a good enough job. To prepare people for the practice, you must educate them on how to conduct it.

Sure, but I don't want it continually dispersed along the science theory and experimentation, which is why I suggested the 'science ethics/etc' sub-class as keeping it together. Done wrong, people learning science will keep thinking about ethics in a way that will make science theory and practice itself look unscientific because it is missing the ethical side, even though science is inherently just the scientific method and scientific knowledge.

By all means educate science itself and its interaction with other topics, but don't make it so close-knit that people conflate the two.