Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thomen
Now that is funny, Sky. As a matter of fact it is both taught in Germany, is it not? Strangely it seems, there are no such problems.But the kids and the parents have the right to opt out of the religion part.
I am for teaching both, with the chance to opt out. Give people the chance to decide for themselves. Forbidding one and favoring the other because it is more sound is exactly what many people do not want: Being told what they have to believe.
Hypocrisy FTW.
|
You are right. and maybe that is one of the reasons why there are political motivations on level of federal states to replace religious classes in school with non-specific, non-religious ethics classes. The hypocrisy continues in varied court-ruling regarding head-scarfs, and crucifixes in classroom. Conservative Bavaria ("Germany's Texas") insists on the latter, while other federal states have banned them, and have forbidden at least female teachers to wear head-scarfs. the state should stay away from promoting religious classes of any kind in publicly funded schools.
I myself was successfully banned repeatedly from religious classes for the rest of the schoolyear.
Nothing better than to start early...
Creationism is NOT being taught at public schools in Germany. But the rate at which it is becoming popular in Europe'S new Eastern states, and Turkey and parts of the Islamic world as well, is frigthening. must be a virus eating the brain.
Lance,
when I said "witness" i maybe was not precise enough, and lacked the correct words. what I meanis: it is a difference to know that somebody is islamic, for example a colleague at work. not by business, I do not jump at his throat over that info alone. but if he is given freedoms to make breaks five times a day while others must compensate for his absence, or like we just had it in my wider neighbourhood: that in a part of the city where no Muslim community lives, a mosque is being raised or is to be enlarged, close to your home, or every time you go into town you need to shake off some people from religious information stands that try to engage you, or a sect is meeting in the flat next to you and you need to live with their tootling and yelling extacy, or a religious lobby demands teachings in its favour being brought to public or being made part of the curriculum at public schools - then that is something different.
As I always say: keep thy religion to thyself. It is NOT a public thing, it is a most privvate thing, so keep your belief in your private sphere. what could be more intimate and private than the relation you have between you and the deity you believe in? Is it a fairgrouund attraction? You need to dress it in candy-floss, and advertise it with colourful lights and promises for prices of goldfish? No relgion has a legal or moral right to missionize, no matter what it claims. I do not care for the colours of the walls in your flat, I must not like it and I must not be interested. But when you tell me I need to paint my own flat in the same colours, or that I need to come over and admire it and like it, I turn difficult, and short time later turn towards attack if you do not shut up. (Saying "you" in a general, not in a personal meaning). What somebody's private beliefs are, does not interest me as long as he does not claim needs or rights to bother others or me with it. But once he claims that by religion he is obligated and demands the freedom to make it known to the public, or enforce his ways no matter if the social environments cares or not, wants it or not,
religion turns away from caring for man's spiritual wellfare and turns towards becoming totalitarian earthly powerpolitics, and is about trying to subjugate others and establish censorship and tyranny with itself as the ruler. That is true in case of Islam, and that is true for fundamental Christians lobbying for their church's goals, and that is true for the traditional past role of the conventional churches as well. As a matter of fact I think it is a general rule that where religion is public -
RELIGION IS POWERPOLITICS. That's the deal: you submit. You can't argue with it, you can't have a reasonable debate, because religion wants you to give up the very reason and logic itself, give up independant thinking and submit to just believing, blindly - believing in what it tells you. You submit, becasue to say you got convinced needs that you have been given undeniable reasons and evidence. but this does religion not: it declares blind beloieving as the real virtue, and claims it is superior to reason and logic. Where you give reasons, thoughts, logic and argument, it just says "I believe different" and demands that that shall be seen as valid and worthy an attitude like evidence, logic or reason. This is where it becomes useless and a waste of time to try arguing with religion. when somebody says: "That is all nice and well what you say, but you can'T prove that god does not exist, and that is evidence for me that he does exist", it becomes stupid, and is nothing more than intellect's declaration of bancruptcy.
But where such people want me to accept limiting my freedom in favour of their religious powerpolitics, they find a new enemy in me. I demand to be left alone by them and their practices, and I demand them to practice their things in ways that I do not need to be constantly noting it, and does not need to chnage my life. keep thy religion to thyself. But if you don't - expect nothing but mockery and attack from me.
I think I have made my stand clear in the essay you asked me for last week. Even shorter, my position is this: believing is not knowing. I take the freedom to insist for you showing evidence that what you believe is true and your god does exist. Give me evidence in the meaning of the word, not just some distorted carricature of evidence, and I join your camp.
Or better, don't care for giving me evidence, but leave it to the boss himself to show up with evidence. If he really is a god, he knows my motivation and will understand it as the honesty that it is. and if he doesn't and just threatens me hellfire and penalty if I do not obey, he can lick my a$$.
If somebody wants creationism being taught in school as if it were on same eyelevel like scientific theories, then I demand classes to teach the religion of the flying spagetthi monster as a scientific truth as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster