Religious Belief Unhealthy for Society?

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

10/03/2005 03:09:35 PM · #76

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by RonB:
They have no intent to FORCE people to give up homosexual behaviour, as long as it ( along with all OTHER sexual activities ) is done in PRIVATE, and NOT institutionalized ( e.g. taught as "acceptable alternative lifestyles" in the schools ).

So two guys kissing while standing in front of a school waiting to pick up their adopted son is perfectly okay?

Only if it is a PRIVATE school. ( I did say "as long as it is done in PRIVATE ). :-)
Seriously, it depends on the kiss. A brief kiss of greeting, whether on the cheek, neck or even on the lips, is quite acceptable. A lip-lock or french kiss is not. Neither would it be appropriate for heterosexuals to engage in such.

Message edited by author 2005-10-03 15:14:53.

Canon EOS-60D

10/03/2005 03:13:22 PM · #77

Originally posted by louddog:

So two guys kissing while standing in front of a school waiting to pick up their adopted son is perfectly okay?

Whether you or anyone else on the planet agrees with it or not, it's perfectly legal. Maybe not socially acceptable in many areas, maybe not what the bible says is permissable if you are so inclined to believe the teachings of that particular book, but legal all the same. Just because some might not agree with it doesn't make it not "perfectly okay."

On a personal note, my kids know that not all families look like ours. They know that some kids have two moms, some have two dads, some have one of each together, or only one raising their children. They also know the important issue is that the children are loved and taken care of properly.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/03/2005 03:16:00 PM · #78

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by RonB:
So in order to NOT be forced into constant exposure to immorality in their society, people of faith should be self-marginalized and keep to their houses...

immorality by whose standards?

By the standards of that society consisting of "people of faith", as I thought I implied.

Are there activities that YOU consider to be immoral? If so, who sets YOUR standards?

People of faith can point to the foundational teaching that establishes their standards - and it never changes from year to year. Can you do the same?

'People of faith' is a very broad term. There are some churches which do accept things that you would refer to as immoral. Public school in my mind should be public, open to anyone in society, since they are funded by tax dollars. I realize the terms public and private have different meanings depending on which country you are in.

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/03/2005 03:16:32 PM · #79

I would just like to throw these definitions into the thread to ensure we are all talking about the same thing.
immoral : not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour; morally wrong:

moral - relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. which each person believes in, rather than to laws

Using this defintition of immoral it is society that decides if something is immoral - not God - unless society has agreed to accept God's ruling. Since the law of the land should not be dependent on religious laws then such issues as homosexuality and pre-marital sex cannot be deemed immoral in the true sense of the word.
P
Originally posted by RonB:
However, an increased sense of "morality" IS the answer, but it would appear that many, not just in the U.S. but throughout the world, prefer to bend the definition of "morality" to include only those "sins" that they, themselves, do not indulge in regularly. Ergo, abortion, adultery, pre-marital sex, fornication, homosexual behaviour, internet pornography, cheating on one's income taxes, dealing drugs, using drugs, looting when there is little chance of getting caught, stealing paperclips from one's employer, etc. are no longer considered immoral, as they once were.
And yes, the "religious right" attempts their best to reverse the slide into immorality, even though it often seems like bailing against the tide.

Message edited by author 2005-10-03 15:19:10.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/03/2005 03:20:30 PM · #80

Originally posted by RonB:

My standards for morality and basis for them is irrelevent because I am not expecting others to live by my standards.

10/03/2005 03:22:59 PM · #81

So RonB, let me get this straight, your argument, summed up all the way from the start is this (so far):

You want everyone to be tolerant of others, and as part of being tolerant, other people should avoid exposing your kids to what you don't want them to see, and thus the general public should allow you to legislate what they can and can't do in public (in case your kids see it, which you wouldn't tolerate), because you are part of that public, and them doing something (that you aren't tolerant of) is intolerant of them towards your practices?

This brings to mind one parallel - the taliban forbidding tv.

10/03/2005 03:27:24 PM · #82

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Originally posted by louddog:
So two guys kissing while standing in front of a school waiting to pick up their adopted son is perfectly okay?

Whether you or anyone else on the planet agrees with it or not, it's perfectly legal. Maybe not socially acceptable in many areas, maybe not what the bible says is permissable if you are so inclined to believe the teachings of that particular book, but legal all the same. Just because some might not agree with it doesn't make it not "perfectly okay."

On a personal note, my kids know that not all families look like ours. They know that some kids have two moms, some have two dads, some have one of each together, or only one raising their children. They also know the important issue is that the children are loved and taken care of properly.

At some ages, kids are blissfully unaware of the SEXUAL aspects of adult relationships. Knowing that someone has two moms or two dads is a non-issue for them, as is skin-color, religion, ethnicity, political leaning, etc. This is a joyful time.
Later, when it is apparent by the questions they ask ( hopefully, because we, their parents, have created an environment where such questions are dealt with openly and honestly ), there will be ample opportunity to explain such things in greater detail, to the extent that they are able to assimilate such knowledge.
In my case, while explaining such things, I am clear to communicate that some behaviours are sinful according to the Bible, but that God loves ALL people, and that He loves NONE less than He loves us, so that WE can do no less. We are to hate sin, but love sinners, and since we are ALL sinners, that means love everyone.

10/03/2005 03:32:11 PM · #83

Originally posted by louddog:

My standards for morality and basis for them is irrelevent because I am not expecting others to live by my standards.

A cop out if I ever heard one.
But, then again, You and I are similar. I don't expect others to live by my standards, either. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not MY standards. I didn't invent them. And people have ALWAYS lived in rebellion against them.

10/03/2005 03:42:22 PM · #84

Originally posted by riot:

Pretty much true, that. But I'm confused. Did the taliban forbid TV in PUBLIC or in PRIVATE?
Do YOU think that it should be OK to show x-rated movies on all the screens of the TV's on display at Wal-Mart?
Should it be permissable for a couple to have sex on the sidewalk next to the elementary school, during recess?
Surely, even YOU would draw the line somewhere? But WHO do you rely on to determine where that line IS? Don't you think that YOU should have some input into that decision? Does legislation forbidding such public activities infringe unduly on your freedoms? If it does, then why aren't you campaigning against such barriers to your personal freedoms? Or is it just that SOME barriers are acceptable and others are not? And you just don't want the determination of where to place the barriers to be influenced by "religious nuts"?

ergo

10/03/2005 03:49:40 PM · #85

Originally posted by RonB:

The greatest achievement of the Christian Right in the US over the past thirty years was their discovery that if one pulls the discussion to an extreme point, others tend to forget what it is that one is really talking about.

Yeah, I've got barriers. DON'T YOU TELL ME WHERE MY BARRIERS SHOULD BE, especially if you're going to be basing that process on a religious doctrine.

We all, regardless of our religious tendencies and preferences, have a code of morality.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/03/2005 04:00:35 PM · #86

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by riot:
So RonB, let me get this straight, your argument, summed up all the way from the start is this (so far):

You want everyone to be tolerant of others, and as part of being tolerant, other people should avoid exposing your kids to what you don't want them to see, and thus the general public should allow you to legislate what they can and can't do in public (in case your kids see it, which you wouldn't tolerate), because you are part of that public, and them doing something (that you aren't tolerant of) is intolerant of them towards your practices?

This brings to mind one parallel - the taliban forbidding tv.

Pretty much true, that. But I'm confused. Did the taliban forbid TV in PUBLIC or in PRIVATE?
Do YOU think that it should be OK to show x-rated movies on all the screens of the TV's on display at Wal-Mart?
Should it be permissable for a couple to have sex on the sidewalk next to the elementary school, during recess?
Surely, even YOU would draw the line somewhere? But WHO do you rely on to determine where that line IS? Don't you think that YOU should have some input into that decision? Does legislation forbidding such public activities infringe unduly on your freedoms? If it does, then why aren't you campaigning against such barriers to your personal freedoms? Or is it just that SOME barriers are acceptable and others are not? And you just don't want the determination of where to place the barriers to be influenced by "religious nuts"?

Because these barriers are not imposed by some misguided concept of a universal one-sided morality in my society, but for a much more basic need for public order. I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of such things, nor am i in principle either agreeing or disagreeing with your argument - it's just that it's not often people are prepared to admit what they really mean, i.e. that they want the right to limit others' rights.

Actually i think that's something perfectly reasonable, although i don't really have any support for your idea that keeping your children away from things that happen in the real world will somehow make their life better. The way i read it, if you follow your argument through to its logical conclusion you should be insisting that all homosexual behaviour be wiped out altogether, or at least even mentioning its existance, should be outlawed in the same way as its practice in front of a school... one way or another your children will be "exposed" to it. The reason i don't think you'd follow this through to its conclusion however, and the reason why you'd enforce it in public but not private, is the same reason why you're worried about your children seeing such things at all:

If you trust your upbringing of your children, and know that they'd recognise what's "morally right", you should have no reason to worry about them becoming violent if they simply see violence, or growing up to be homosexual if they see a same-sex couple kissing... right? See, to me, this is where it breaks down. If it's a "fact" that such things are morally wrong, then either you don't trust yourself to bring up your children in a way that would teach them to behave "morally right", or you're afraid that given the choice, and an objective (innocent child's eye view) of the situation, they'd end up making choices different and contradictory to yours. To an innocent child who has not been indoctrinated with westernised misinterpretations of the old testament, gay love might appear to be a beautiful thing. What a terrible misconception that would be, right? So much so that you might not be able to set them straight again? This is, to me, why america is so obsessed with oppressing and hiding away what it feels threatened by, rather than confronting it.

Chinabun

Canon PowerShot SD990 IS

10/03/2005 04:03:49 PM · #87

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/03/2005 04:21:13 PM · #88

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by louddog:
My standards for morality and basis for them is irrelevent because I am not expecting others to live by my standards.

A cop out if I ever heard one.
But, then again, You and I are similar. I don't expect others to live by my standards, either. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not MY standards. I didn't invent them. And people have ALWAYS lived in rebellion against them.

No cop out at all. My standards are irrelevent to this conversation. If helps you any way though, the basis for my moral standards is pretty simple. Everyone should treat each other as they wish others would treat them. I know there are some faults in that foundation, but over all I think it's pretty solid.

However, you said you don't think it's right that your kids are exposed to things you think are immoral at school or the library. Isn't that kind of like wanting others to live by your standards?

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/03/2005 04:24:54 PM · #89

Originally posted by riot:

Wow theSaj, you're spammier than usual today - did this discussion touch a nerve? ;)

Not at all....Just posted and by the time I finished writing there were new comments.

10/03/2005 04:35:48 PM · #90

Originally posted by rgo:

DON'T YOU TELL ME WHERE MY BARRIERS SHOULD BE, especially if you're going to be basing that process on a religious doctrine.

Says it all.
Reminds me of when I first met my ( future ) wife. She asked me if I always did what my mother told me to do. I said NO, not always, but when what my mother says makes logical sense, why would I NOT do it? Just because it was HER suggestion? You may not agree, but to me, a good suggestion is a good suggestion no matter WHO makes it. My fiance saw the logic in that, otherwise we would probably never have married.

As rgo implies, if one suggests a moral barrier based on a religious doctrine, some folks automatically resent and resist it. But the SAME suggestion, if made by a socialist, communist, atheist, or other secularist, is perfectly acceptable and worthy of consideration, at the least.

Such a double standard doesn't surprise me.

10/03/2005 04:47:08 PM · #91

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by louddog:
My standards for morality and basis for them is irrelevent because I am not expecting others to live by my standards.

A cop out if I ever heard one.
But, then again, You and I are similar. I don't expect others to live by my standards, either. As I have repeatedly stated, they are not MY standards. I didn't invent them. And people have ALWAYS lived in rebellion against them.

No cop out at all. My standards are irrelevent to this conversation. If helps you any way though, the basis for my moral standards is pretty simple. Everyone should treat each other as they wish others would treat them. I know there are some faults in that foundation, but over all I think it's pretty solid.

However, you said you don't think it's right that your kids are exposed to things you think are immoral at school or the library. Isn't that kind of like wanting others to live by your standards?

Sure, but no more so than atheists not wanting THEIR kids exposed to "religious" stuff at school, or in the library. Why should "religious" people accommodate an ATHEIST's need to not expose THEIR children to "offensive" stuff, but THEY should not accomodate OUR need to not have OUR children exposed to "offensive" stuff? The answer, of course, is the infamous "separation of church and state". And, of course, there is NO "separation" of immorality and state, so WE, but not THEY, should just shut up and deal with it.
EVERYONE's beliefs should be tolerated - everyone's that is, except Christians'. After all, ALL of the beliefs of Christians are "religious" in nature. While everyone ELSE is entitled to have morals WITHOUT religion, a Christian cannot - all of a Christian's morals are "religious" in nature, even if they are the same as those held by an atheist sitting next to them.

10/03/2005 05:00:58 PM · #92

Originally posted by RonB:

Balls. There's a difference between what "atheists" object to and what you object to. People rarely mind their children being taught about religion. What they object is mandatory prayer in schools and similar. There's a bit of a difference between letting your children see two men kissing, and having them forced to kiss members of the same sex at school. You're equating the two.

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

10/03/2005 05:08:26 PM · #93

Originally posted by RonB:

Seriously, it depends on the kiss. A brief kiss of greeting, whether on the cheek, neck or even on the lips, is quite acceptable. A lip-lock or french kiss is not. Neither would it be appropriate for heterosexuals to engage in such.

Your saying that it is even unacceptable for heterosexuals to french kiss in public near a school ???

I can put your beliefs on gay people down to homophobia but dude you need to move along with the times, what century are you living in ?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/03/2005 05:10:56 PM · #94

Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by RonB:
Sure, but no more so than atheists not wanting THEIR kids exposed to "religious" stuff at school, or in the library. Why should "religious" people accommodate an ATHEIST's need to not expose THEIR children to "offensive" stuff, but THEY should not accomodate OUR need to not have OUR children exposed to "offensive" stuff? The answer, of course, is the infamous "separation of church and state".

Balls. There's a difference between what "atheists" object to and what you object to.

Of COURSE there is. What THEY object to is based on logic and reason. What I object to is based in bigotry and intolerance.
Or so I have been repeatedly told.

Originally posted by riot:

People rarely mind their children being taught about religion. What they object is mandatory prayer in schools and similar.

Actually, they DO mind having their children being taught about religion. And, more specifically, what they object to is ANY mention of God, or ( gasp, even worse ) Jesus Christ in ANY school venue, be it term papers, book reports, after school clubs, and especially STUDENT initiated prayers.

Originally posted by riot:

There's a bit of a difference between letting your children see two men kissing, and having them forced to kiss members of the same sex at school. You're equating the two.

No, I am not. But I'd be interested as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/03/2005 05:19:54 PM · #95

They don't, and shouldn't, teach religion in school because there are only like 4,594 different religions practiced in the United States and it would take forever to teach the poor kids all that stuff and all the different beliefs. You can't teach just one religion in a public school and ignore the other 4,593 because you'd have a lot of upset religions.

If you want your kids to learn religion in school, send them to a private school. However, I'd reccomend teaching your kids about religion yourself.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/03/2005 05:19:55 PM · #96

On the topic of religion in schools, what religion should be included and what shouldn't? The public school system is there for all so with the diversity of society this has become a real issue.

edit: beat by 1 second

Message edited by author 2005-10-03 17:21:22.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/03/2005 05:22:25 PM · #97

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Correlation is not causality, and Paul isn't saying that it is."

Originally posted by "thesaj":
But he's not...and this is my scientific gripe. His study was poor.

Sorry in my haste I was not as clear as I should have been:

You stated...

"He's merely showing a correlation between the "social dysfunction" factors and the more highly religious societies."

Which is what my "But he's not..." was in regards to.

In order to make the correlation that he is endeavoring he would need several more pieces of evidence to logicly conclude even a correlation.

My point was that his study did not even produce enough valid argument to even establish a correlation.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Everything that follows in your post just reinforces my view that you still don't understand what Paul's study found and what the author of the article is saying; and you also don't understand the difference between causality and correlation.

Even to make a correlation, you must have a reasonable data weight. Paul's study lacks such. It is akin to saying "more crime happens in the south". The south is warmer than the north. Therefore, obviously, warmer region produces more crime.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

When the events involve numbers, a positive correlation means that as one increases, the other increases as well. A negative correlation means that as one increases, the other decreases.

Correct, but in order to establish such you must compare comparable numbers. This is where Paul failed. And the commentator even more so. His averages of regions and statements are arguably false. For instance, regions he denotes being "high violent crime" and regions he denotes being "highly religious" do inhabit the major geographical area but not necessarily the same. For simple example as pointed out by the L.A. commentator regard red vs blue states. However, even in red states most cities are blue. And in most blue states, much of the non-city regions are red. Red, usually corresponds to "higher religion" levels and blue to more "secularist" levels. So the correlation of including the highly blue cities and globalizing the crime is mixing of apples and oranges.

Second, California is a highly secularized state but also with high crime in the southern region.

Third, there is already a known leading contributor. Impoverishment. In order to be scientific you must take into account already known conclusive or strong correlative data. He failed to do so.

Fourthly, he failed to distinguish why his causality failed in the case of the U.S. northeast crime-rate comparing to that of western Europe. His correlation is not holding true. This leads one to concede that said correlation is in fact - invalid.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

You're arguing that he looked at the wrong variables or screwed up the statistics by attributing crime rates to Louisiana that should have been attributed to New York because you can't believe his results based on your own biases.

Not, saying that at all. You're the one up in arms.

One of the biggest and most common statistical errors is to generalize your data to broadly. "Everyone owns a car because everyone we surveyed owned a car." Now, when you know there are people taking busses and who have no registered vehicle. Then you know people who do not have cars exist.

Sure, crime is higher in say Louisiana...sure overall Georgia may have voted red. But Atlanta likely voted blue. A high percentage of that crime is record in Atlanta. Thus you're attributing crime in "blue/secular" areas to "red/religious" in surrounding areas.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

But have you actually looked at his scientific method, or are you just making assumptions about what he did? Where is your documentation?

I've seen the maps that have detailed the election and clearly denote that the majority of cities voted blue. And cities have higher crime rates in general than rural and suburban areas.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

The question still remains, if this correlation or relationship or pattern exists between high levels of religious belief and high levels of social dysfunction, and inversely a pattern or relationship exists between lower levels of social dysfunction and lower levels of religious belief

It doesn't...as shown by the lack of correlation between the northeast and Europe.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

why is that the case?

If you want to know why there is higher crime, dysfunction, etc. It mainly ties down to the greater impoverishment of the South. If you would like to understand that you need only study a bit of history to understand that the "educational" and "industrial" foundations were lower in the south. And further retarded by some of the costs and weights burdened onto the south after the Civil War. All of these contributed to the southern regions being of lesser wealth than the northern regions.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Certainly, if the relationship had been the reverse, the religious right would be shouting those results from the mountaintops!

If the south was religious, poor and still less violent and dysfunctional. Than yes. Because you now have a very different paradigm.

But if the south was religious, rich, and less violent than the case would be more insinuation than anything else.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It's not a double standard. No one is forcing anybody to be promiscuous, or to have an abortion. It is only the religious right, through their minions in the Republican party, who are attempting to limit individual freedom and responsibility for personal choice. "Secularists" and civil libertarians are trying to minimize the ability of one group to control the activities of another.

I disagree. You limit me from being able to murder or kill people. But then tell me than when I endeavor to limit the same that I am intolerant. Why?

The current trend of the "religious right" (for the purposes of this debate, as expressed by many IN this debate) is to attempt to institutionalize conservative, Christian values at the federal level. [/quote]

The main issues I fight for as a member of the quote "religious right":

- The right to assemble freely & to worship privately or in groups (this includes the right of a child to pray or read their Bible on a playground or for a group of believers to pray before a soccer game that no one gets hurt and all have a good fun game)

- For the lives of unborn babies. Something I believe from both a spiritual, moral, and scientific standpoint is murder. This basically relates to abortion and the ban on Federal funds for fetal stem-cell research

- protection of religious sacraments, main issue currently on this one is marriage (which I have detailed in length in several threads on my view that this is really a seperation of church and state issue and if both sides conceded such it would be easily resolved - though neither side would gain their desired victory over the other)

- that abstinance education be INCLUDED but not the exclusive instruction.

- equal opportunity for "social $$$ funds"...

Originally posted by "bear_music":

On a more pragmatic level, the argument is between those who feel that if a majority (51%) of the people want a thing, then the minority (49%) must agree to accept it, whatever it is.

So because 51% feel that they do not want any Federal monies going to a religious based soup-kitchen or aid service than that should be the case and the other 49% should accept it?

Originally posted by "bear_music":

This is actually a perversion of the true art of democracy, which is to forge consensus among disparate elements so NOBODY feels "trampled upon" except extremists.

No one ever thinks themselves an extremist. Do you think Usama bin Laden thinks himself an extremist? Do you think Pat Robertson thinks himself an extremist? do you think Lous Farrakhan thinks himself an extremist? do you think Karl Marx & Vladimir Lenin thought themselves extremists? nor the good southern gentlemen regarding slavery?

Everyone believes their own views not to be extreme but rather those they differ with to be in extreme. Constitutional Democracy is merely a tool to endeavor to limit the extremes.

Originally posted by "rgo":

It wasn't gun control or a strong economy or new police strategies that finally blunted the American crime wave. It was, among other factors, the reality that the pool of potential criminals had dramatically shrunk.

But did crime go down? if we merely made it acceptable to kill 30 million people in order to violent crimes by 10 million. The main difference is we've killed the innoncent. We are "Minority Report" sentencing before the crime has been committed.

Originally posted by "cpanaioti":

Public school in my mind should be public, open to anyone in society, since they are funded by tax dollars.

This goes to the root of the problem. What do the schools teach and who decides. And we'll exclude the science debate. And focus merely on the moral debate.

If John Doe is paying taxes to support a school system and he beliefs homosexuality is wrong. His child goes to the public school. Now the school does not simply teach there are varying lifestyles - some accept them and other do not. But rather, endeavors out of it's "idea" of tolerance to teach that "homosexuality" is completely fine and acceptable and any intolerance or non-acceptance or even simply not condoning of it is "intolerable and wrong".

But that same school just dictated (taught to that child) that a faith, which doesn't condone homosexuality, is wrong. It instilled a moral problem.

Sure, you might say that they could send their child to a private school if they'd like. But they can't....the government took 20% of their income to pay for schools and other social programs like Planned Parenthood.

This all goes to the real issue...when our nation became socialistic it breached into the teaching and deciding of morality. Thus....moral issues will always be at hand in our government.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

Using this defintition of immoral it is society that decides if something is immoral - not God - unless society has agreed to accept God's ruling. Since the law of the land should not be dependent on religious laws then such issues as homosexuality and pre-marital sex cannot be deemed immoral in the true sense of the word.

So society dictates. But what happens when society is split fairly evenly down the middle as we are today? 50% must dictate to the other 50%.

The issue at hand is that the pendulum is in the middle so both side are trying to push it. When it was far swung one way it was not pushed much because homosexuals couldn't leverage it 2 centuries ago. Now, in another 100 yrs religious people will likely be in the place of homosexuals. Operating in secret. Under much criticism and restriction whether by law or simple societal pressure. The pendulum is now swinging the other way.

[quote="louddog"]
My standards for morality and basis for them is irrelevent because I am not expecting others to live by my standards. [quote]

So if I drove to your house with a shotgun and ended your life...did you not expect me to live by your standards? Is what I did "okay" or is it morally wrong? Am I expected to live by the moral standard not to commit murder?

10/03/2005 05:41:35 PM · #98

Originally posted by louddog:

There is a place in school to teach ABOUT "religions" without teaching about "RELIGIONS". That is to say, a curriculum could be developed to teach about the concepts of religions ( attribution of supernatural power and influence to non-human entities ), and the influence of religions on culture, law, literature, art, etc. without having to delve into the many and varied tenets of each religion or of every religion.
While I am certainly not opposed to such teaching, at an appropriate grade level, neither am I campaigning for it. I agree that the tenets of religion should be taught in the home with assistance from the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever. It would help greatly if parents were also aware of the religions of others in their childrens' sphere of influence so that they can answer questions about what others believe and why they believe what they do, and how that is similar to, or differs from what "we" believe and why we believe it. I'll be the first to admit that I have had to study a lot and have learned a lot because of the friends my children chose.

10/03/2005 05:47:38 PM · #99

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by RonB:
Sure, but no more so than atheists not wanting THEIR kids exposed to "religious" stuff at school, or in the library. Why should "religious" people accommodate an ATHEIST's need to not expose THEIR children to "offensive" stuff, but THEY should not accomodate OUR need to not have OUR children exposed to "offensive" stuff? The answer, of course, is the infamous "separation of church and state".

Balls. There's a difference between what "atheists" object to and what you object to.

Of COURSE there is. What THEY object to is based on logic and reason. What I object to is based in bigotry and intolerance.
Or so I have been repeatedly told.

I didn't tell you that. You're changing the subject.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by riot:
People rarely mind their children being taught about religion. What they object is mandatory prayer in schools and similar.

Actually, they DO mind having their children being taught about religion. And, more specifically, what they object to is ANY mention of God, or ( gasp, even worse ) Jesus Christ in ANY school venue, be it term papers, book reports, after school clubs, and especially STUDENT initiated prayers.

Alright, well, my earlier comments about upbringing and fear apply to those types as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching children about religion, same as there's nothing wrong with teaching them about homosexuality (or is there, in your moral system?). But...

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by riot:
There's a bit of a difference between letting your children see two men kissing, and having them forced to kiss members of the same sex at school. You're equating the two.

No, I am not. But I'd be interested as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

...basically, teaching children "there is a god, and here's where it's written in the bible" is not the same as "some people believe there is a god and here is why, and others do not and here is why"... and the difference, carrying on your example, is equivalent to the difference between "people of the same sex sometimes have sexual attraction towards each other, here is why" and "you should be attracted to people of the same sex, here is why". I'm sure even you wouldn't mind your children being taught the first (or if you would, you must surely acknowledge they'll eventually learn it somehow), but i doubt you'd approve of the second.