Science and Religious belief

On 4/2/2015 4:05 PM, Mike Collins wrote:
David Staup wrote:
On 4/1/2015 2:18 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:26:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Nothing coercive about that. Unless you're talking about the *public school
system*, which was under discussion earlier in this thread. Liberals tend to
opppose school vouchers, which remove the coercive element, and would make it
less objectionable if some things taught in school could be construed as
propaganda.

Of course, I'm opposed to vouchers as I see them seriously damaging
public education. I also believe in a standardized national curriculum
that all children must be presented with. Is that coercive? I guess it
depends on viewpoint. I'd recognized education with a standardized
minimum curriculum as a right that all children have, and which cannot
be denied by parents, like the right to modern healthcare.

These things meet my criteria of the most minimally intrusive rules
needed to assure an functional society. I also seem them as expanding
rights, not reducing them.

But I don't suggest implementing them by some sort of dictatorial
mechanism. Rather, I suggest persuading people until such a view
represents that of a majority of people.

chuckle

divorced from reality, I'd say

but then that has always been the case with you

Quote from John Locke:

"Contrary principles in the world. I easily grant that there are great
numbers of opinions which, by men of different countries, educations, and
tempers, are received and embraced as first and unquestionable
principles; many whereof, both for their absurdity as well as oppositions
to one another, it is impossible should be true. But yet all those
propositions, how remote soever from reason, are so sacred somewhere or
other, that men even of good understanding in other matters, will sooner
part with their lives, and whatever is dearest to them, than suffer
themselves to doubt, or others to question, the truth of them.

How men commonly come by their principles. This, however strange it may
seem, is that which every day's experience confirms; and will not,
perhaps, appear so wonderful, if we consider the ways and steps by which
it is brought about; and how really it may come to pass, that doctrines
that have been derived from no better original than the superstition of a
nurse, or the authority of an old woman, may, by length of time and
consent of neighbours, grow up to the dignity of principles in religion
or morality. For such, who are careful (as they call it) to principle
children well, (and few there be who have not a set of those principles
for them, which they believe in,) instil into the unwary, and as yet
unprejudiced, understanding, (for white paper receives any characters,)
those doctrines they would have them retain and profess. These being
taught them as soon as they have any apprehension; and still as they grow
up confirmed to them, either by the open profession or tacit consent of
all they have to do with; or at least by those of whose wisdom,
knowledge, and piety they have an opinion, who never suffer those
propositions to be otherwise mentioned but as the basis and foundation on
which they build their religion and manners, come, by these means, to
have the reputation of unquestionable, self-evident, and innate truths. "


So, I ask, who the **** do you think you are?

anyone opposed to vouchers must be in favor of cultivating ignorance.

clearly you have been cultivating your ignorance and now you advocate
cultivating the ignorance of kids....

"I suggest persuading people until such a view
represents that of a majority of people....

chuckle, a typical liberal progressive IDIOT

Vouchers don't look like a bad idea until you see how they can ruin a
country's education system.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._friedman.html

More ignorance dude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans_Public_Schools

"Though the Orleans Parish School Board has retained ownership of all
the assets of the New Orleans Public Schools system, including all
school buildings, approximately 90% of students attending public schools
in Orleans Parish now attend independent public charter schools - the
highest percentage in the nation."


"A 2009 survey conducted by Tulane University's Cowen Institute for
Public Education Initiatives, which is listed as a "Key Partner" of New
Schools for New Orleans, a charter school advocacy group, indicated that
the state's takeover of the majority of NOPS and the subsequent spread
of independent public charters was viewed with strong approval, by both
parents of students and by citizens in general. Specifically, a poll of
347 randomly selected Orleans Parish voters and 300 randomly selected
parents of children in the NOPS system indicated that 85% of parents
surveyed reported they were able to enroll their children at the school
they preferred, and 84% said the enrollment process was easy - findings
that surprised the researchers. Furthermore, 82% of parents with
children enrolled at public charter schools gave their children's
schools an "A" or "B", though only 48% of parents of children enrolled
in non-chartered public schools assigned A's or B's to the schools their
children attended. According to the survey, clear majorities of parents
and of voters overall did not want the Orleans Parish School Board to
regain full administrative control of the NOPS system"


A voucher system NOT run by liberal idiots works just fine...


chuckle

On 4/1/2015 4:29 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:23:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Societies may constrain actions.

However, certain actions are essential to the survival of thoughts and beliefs.
Thus, the First Amendment also deals with freedom of speech.

Agreed.

If we do not allow parents to teach their beliefs to their own children, we are
seeking to exterminate those beliefs, which is conduct contrary to the intent
of the First Amedment.

I generally agree. But I do not seek to make it illegal for parents to
teach religion to their children, I seek to make it socially
unacceptable, like teaching them racial jokes.

However, teaching these beliefs to the children of parents who do not share
them is rightly prohibited.

I believe it is entirely appropriate to require children to be taught
certain things, even if their parents disapprove. That is a valid
function of society.

So you want Madrasa here

figures

Idiots agreeing with idiots..... chuckle

David Staup wrote:
On 4/1/2015 4:29 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:23:54 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Societies may constrain actions.

However, certain actions are essential to the survival of thoughts and beliefs.
Thus, the First Amendment also deals with freedom of speech.

Agreed.

If we do not allow parents to teach their beliefs to their own children, we are
seeking to exterminate those beliefs, which is conduct contrary to the intent
of the First Amedment.

I generally agree. But I do not seek to make it illegal for parents to
teach religion to their children, I seek to make it socially
unacceptable, like teaching them racial jokes.

However, teaching these beliefs to the children of parents who do not share
them is rightly prohibited.

I believe it is entirely appropriate to require children to be taught
certain things, even if their parents disapprove. That is a valid
function of society.

So you want Madrasa here

figures

Idiots agreeing with idiots..... chuckle

A school not teaching evolution for religious reasons is the equivalent of
a madrassa.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:46:03 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

A school not teaching evolution for religious reasons is the equivalent of
a madrassa.

As a kid, I sort of taught myself evolution, astronomy, geology, etc., by reading books and encyclopedias about those subjects on my own. Most of my classmates also seemed to have a good grasp of science.

wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:46:03 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

A school not teaching evolution for religious reasons is the equivalent of
a madrassa.

As a kid, I sort of taught myself evolution, astronomy, geology, etc., by
reading books and encyclopedias about those subjects on my own. Most of
my classmates also seemed to have a good grasp of science.

If your school had taught creation science things might be different.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:14:06 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

" Often conservatives in the US and the UK send their children to private
schools and then complain about the tax money spent on state schools."

That's the whole point of course. Some want a total market approach to education since then they then can reduce or eliminate their portion of the taxes needed to support a universal public education system. Same with universal health care, which they also do not support for same reason. They don't see why they should pay for someone else's goodies. It is a legitimate concern, that is if you believe you have no obligation to society beyond yourself and your family/tribe. Or that you get no benefit from that shared sacrifice.

In a discussion one time with a retired couple, who detested having to pay taxes for public education, I mentioned the fact that their retirement income from stocks and bonds depended on a continuous flow of talented educated individuals entering the workforce, thus keeping capitalism strong and healthy. Industry depends on innovation, which always requires new ideas and new blood with a healthy dose of scholarship. We cannot rely on only the children of the rich to sustain that.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:05:29 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:58:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

The teachers at my primary school wanted me to take the examinations for
Manchester Grammar School and William Hulme's School (the best local
private schools) which they said I would easily pass with a free place. I
refused.

" You should have gone, it might have helped you learn how to think."

Why do you always have to be so nasty? Does it make you feel good somehow?

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:38:12 AM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:
It is a legitimate concern, that is if you believe you have no obligation to
society beyond yourself and your family/tribe.

By including "tribe" in there, of course, since it was only very recently -
with "guest workers" from the Muslim world later given immigrant status - that
most European countries had much in the way of non-Western immigrants... while
the United States has a large black population - one has the explanation of why
the U.S. has a very free-enterprise economic system, while countries like
Sweden have a public consensus in favor of a welfare state.

Because in Sweden, tax-supported social services would go to "people like us"
who happen to be down on their luck - not to a minority seen as a group of
uneducated lazy parasites that are prone to crime.

So the problem is that liberals can expect only so much from the voters.

John Savard

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:53:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Also, China has a larger population than the US.

These days, China has a bigger English-speaking population than the USA...

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:40:14 AM UTC-6, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Why do you always have to be so nasty? Does it make you feel good somehow?

I wouldn't be surprised that he sincerely believes that anyone who disagrees with
him is incapable of thinking straight.

John Savard