okay... accepted.

still... Way not enough equality in my opinion. too much religious influence in europe's public affaire... (subjective opinion)

I want it gone, out of sight, out of mind, out of hospitals, no extras or clemence sexual offenders within church, no extras in finance or tax privileges, no candy for religion.

and the path is long yet.

before, like maybe a thousand years ago, religion offered an answer to many myths and things unexplained.
i want the public aspect of religion to be reduced to what it really has to offer in answers and facts. (tm) :hmm2:

nowadays it seems different... religion offers less and less answers, science offers more. to the point where there are scientific groups and churches popping up.
yet another religion.
dang!

Out of hospitals? The one I work for is run by St Joseph's as a non profit. I don't think that is possible for one and uncaring for the emotional needs of the many who are religious with loved ones in need.

Surely you must be joking. You have made repeated comments about things I have allegedly said. I have repeatedly asked you to quote them. So far you have refused. Now you are alleging that I have made 'obvious essences and implications'. Would you care to tell me what they are? I find your debating tactics to be less than honest.

That you didn't see this as humour and sarcasm amazes me. Here's some more. Stand up every once and awhile. That way less stuff will go over your head.

Such slander. If you knew how tolerant I was you would be ashamed. Again, prove it or stick it.

If there is discrimination against Atheists or anyone based on there personal or religious or non religious beliefs it is in direct violation to the Laws of almost every Democracy in the West. Because some people in a group break the law does that mean that all are guilty? Such poor logic. It would be like saying, if one German was once a Nazi then all Germans are Nazis.

Well that is something to be proud of.

Buddahaid ask you a very good question. Your answers are revealing. No one can live in a world where every thing is as they wish. Diversity and opinions that we may disagree with make the society stronger and the end add to the knowledge base. It is the kind of society that I would prefer to live in. One in which no ones' thoughts or beliefs are restricted within reason.

I wish that you could give some clear example of this. I'm not talking about inconvenience or annoyance. Everyone has to deal with this on a daily basis. I could write a book. Are you being restricted from going any where? Are you being prevented from writing, publishing or publicly saying anything? Are you being held without cause. Are you being subjected to violence?

This is what freedom is about. Not mere inconvenience or annoyance. Not a disagreement in philosophy and world view. It would appear that you have confused the two.

I wonder if you see the irony in making that statement?

If this is your conviction then surely you, as well as others, must obey it.

How about this one,
http://www.berlin.de/special/familie...nicht-sch.html

Kid get put into Religion Class even if she is raised as a nonreligious person.

judges says she has to participate in class and mass, because that religion does not pose a threat, and is good for her.

Like...
what the bleeping buster?

Kid aged around 6 is free to chose on her own, and since she has no experience on the subject, by default it is her parents that chose in such matters.

but the parents choice is overruled by the state who, in a small exaple and probably in an effort to make things simple, puts the kid in Religion class.

Ah, and no, they are not baking cookies there. they talk about Friend Jesus and God and stuff.

so yes, Kids are forced "into religion" by the law... with them (or their parents) being given no choice...

i hope that is an example that is practical andf tangible enough.
you want another one?

That is an amazing story HG. I wish I could read German.

Why did the court order this girl to attend a religious class over her parents objections again?

I never heard such a thing over here.

You don't live close enough to Vatican.

It's harder, near impossible for small congregations to pull stunts like these, while the Roman catholic church has still considerate influence in Europe. It's not a religius order, it's organized crime.

Gustav
Did the parents perhaps choose to send their child to a religious school?


Skybird
Perhaps you should listen to yourself as it is your rampant habit of self contradiction which leaves yourself vulnerable to questions so often:yep:

Like in America, in Germany by legal basis the state should have no role in propagating any religion and support it in public institutions like public school. Religious courses should be banned from public school. The history of how religions behaved over centuries, should be soberly described in history classes. Religion'S morals and ethics are highly biased towards relgious dogma, and thus should not be taught at public schools in explicit, separate courses. Where in history and philosophy classes comparisons between different world views and ideologies are vital to explain historic events, it should be done in context of these history courses, and dealt with as historic data.

Needless to say that religious symbols on walls and religious formulations in school formulas should have no place. Crucifixes do not belong into schools, like green flags with white swords, Turkish flags or a David's star do not belong there, too. On the formulation "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in American schools, there is only one thing to say: originally it was not there and was added to the wording not before some heavy campaigning of a Catholic conservative order in the middle of the last century - some 60 years ago or so. America was not founded on basis of such stuff. The words "in God we trust" also were not added to the printing on dollar notes and coins before modern times, and originally where not part of their design. Again, it was religious campaigning (again by Catholics) that made these changes possible.

I would like to see confession-free ethics&philosophy classes replaciong religion classes, and a boost in number of history hours.

The claim some will raise here that without religion there is no moral behavior, I reject. History shows it to be untrue. Ethics existed before the theistic dogmas started to haunt the world. And often ethics not basing on these dogmas show more humane quality and less barbaric excesses, than those following morals grounded on religion. Just imagine how much violence, discrimination and brutality is carried out right now in the explicit name of religion, with the overwhelming majority silently tolerating it and not raising against this being done in their name.

Not to mention past times.

In the Ayn Rand thread I just quoted a wonderful definition of that morality is.

You can be moral while being atheist. You can be immoral while being an atheist. You can also be moral while being a believer, and you can be immoral while being a believer. For some people, the link between the two, in any direction, is causal. Other people are such that neither their morals lead them to a relgion, nor that a religion makes them act morally. Critical it becomes where religion turns them into behaving immorally. But just the fact that none of the possible four causal links can explain all four combinations should make it obvious to everybody that any claim that the one causally leads to the other and that the one cannot be without the other, is nonsense.

One thing, though. Where you only do a good deed becasue your erlgion tells you you should be dpoing this good deed, if this is your motivation, you may be doing a good deed. But morally acting you are not: you are obedient.

It's ripped out of context. The father said the kid should go to religious classes and the mother objected to that. The judge ruled that the kids can go to religious classes until the dispute between the parents is settled. So no, the state didn't force children to attend religious classes against the will of the parents.

Considering that I got banned from religious classes because of asking too many questions and being stubborn on that, i already assumed that the story had a wider context. However, in 30 years since then, schools have changed. I liked the school I experienced, but I do not like what I get in feedback and am being told about school today.

Thanks. Interesting but lacking details. Tribesman asks a very relevant question. What kind of school is this ? Private, religious or public?

Options.
1.Choose not to receive religious instruction.
2.Send child to non-denominational school
3.Send child to private school.

Doesn't seem quite as tyrannical as the article suggests.

If it is a public school then I would say someone's rights are being abused. This kind of thing would not happen here, Canada. Hey we're still taking immigrants. :O:

okay, the parents were fighting over the subject.

one of the parents to object to indoctrination... is that not good enough?
How can that be?!



But the matter is christian religion. and christian religion... oh it is all right, isnt it. like, comeon, they are not debating big things there, they are talking about the bible, christmas, easter, how to be good, the ten commandements.
no big deal, right?

While at the base i agree (i have walked that path, it taught me some...)

how about if in the future these classes were on the subject of Allah, islam and their books, rites and values.

now that would be fun would it not. People would go raving mad.

actually...
we should try that!


The population would start to scratch they heads about reléigion in they lives, a-aight?:hmm2:

From Wikipedia article Freedom of religion in Germany

In case you didn't notice, religious education class covers all that.

The EU court for Human Rights ruled in second instance in 2011 that crucifixes in rooms of public school can remain there. The case was about a conflict in Italy, but the sentence applies to all EU countries. This sentence therefore overrules German law.

I have repeatedly pointed at the secular nature of German laws being in stark contrast to reality. I listed th church's tax evading schemes, it'S collection of property at the cost of the tax payer, the financial model of Christian hospitals, and the mandatory nature of church taxes that the state collects, as examples. There are more examples. There is a rich literature in German by church critics who have written many books on these issues and proved them black on white and with formal documents as well, because in Germany it is especially bad - that is why the German Catholic church is usually referred to as being the richest worldwide. Somewhere they must have gotten all that wealth from. The network of political support is just one factor.

Even before the EU ruling, federal state sin Germany were simply ignoring the legal demand that crucifixes must be removed if somebody demands that, and found ways that even held against the constitutional courts'S original verdict. The criterions for parents achieving that crucifixes get removed were raised so high that in most cases people are discouraged from all beginning on and must accept long and expensive court procedures up to third instance, or, like in Bavaria, a single sentence was added in the federal states constitution claiming that a criterion is that the parents must bring up reasons that are clearly understandable - the instance deciding whether it is understandable or not of course is the state who objects to removing the crucifixes. Guess how it ends: it ends in nil consequences. So much for freedom from religion. There are a million ways to without freedom from people without needing to formally call it a rejection of freedom. Just make qualification for freedom so impracticable and make the costs so high that nobody can afford it, and they musts give up all by themselves... It is a prime scheme of politics for preventing something without allowing to get called by name over it. "Of course they can go all the way - if they can afford it." :D :D :D

Additionally, courts have ruled that public school must obey to demands by Muslims for being given prayer rooms inside the school building or on its compound. Double standards like this of course also are unacceptable. At public schools, there should be this rule: regarding religious confession, it is neutral ground, and no world view has to claim for any privileges in its framework. People should not be needed to sue the school to become "not religious". The public school should be all by itself all neutral ground. Like public offices. Like courts. Like hospitals whose finances by lion's share get payed by the tax payer. Religious claims, rules, symbols belong into religious club houses, institutions payed for and financed by religion, and the private space of its believers - they belong not into the public sphere. - Additionally, children should be protected from being exposed to religious manipulation at ages where their intellect still is indifferent and their psychic structure still is vulnerable to manipulation, is insecure, still forming up, and can easily be effected for the better or words. We have minimum age rules for cigarettes, alcohol, driving licenses, and sun bathing studios. But none against religious brainwashing? We could then also not care for sects like Moon or Scientology approaching and trying to bind to themselves our children. To form opinions on religion's arguments that are well-grounded, to assess religions' records, to weigh the pros and cons of religion with intellectual competence - that takes quite some age and adult ripeness before you can do that competently and without compromising your own security against religious corruption. I bet that the vast majority of people coming into contact with Jewish, Muslim or Christian dogma form a more independent, intellectually potent image of it and define their attitude towards it differently, than when children from early age on get brainwashed with according sweet tales and miracle belief and thus internalize all this without any emotional or intellectual distance. And that is the reason why religion demand children being exposed to it from as earliest ages on as possible. Because it is about right preventing them from turning into independent, intellectually potent adult individuals who decide for themselves. Cigarette makers aimed heavily at the young in their adverts, because it is a proven fact that it is more than four times as unlikely that somebody becomes a frequent smoker by habit/addiction when he had his first cigarette at the age of 22 or higher, than if he had his first at the age of 16. Comparable reasoning behind religion'S aim at children and the young.

I say: let people grow up, become a person with a grounded identity and a finished education and a developed intellect and then let him/her chose freely whether he wants to confess to any religious dogma, worldview, or whatever. These people have a choice, then, and they have the ability to use it. Children have not, and cannot. It is the adults' duty to protect them, as long as their mental "chitin armour" still is soft and vulnerable.