But what, exactly?

[Cobblestones]

If we can't understand God what do we stand to gain by whinging and moaning about why our flavour of God is different to another? Teaching children absolutes allows them to use their young minds for what they're best at, absorbing information.

Of all the religion i learnt about, none of it has been at all useful.

The truly amazing thing, to me, is that when you get right down to it even the religious will admit that "god" cannot be comprehended - and yet that does not stop them from fantastic dogmatic statements about what god thinks, feels, wants and actually does. The absurdity of it is, actually, awe inspiring.

 

[Willamena]

The truly amazing thing, to me, is that when you get right down to it even the religious will admit that "god" cannot be comprehended - and yet that does not stop them from fantastic dogmatic statements about what god thinks, feels, wants and actually does. The absurdity of it is, actually, awe inspiring.

Around 1900, Max Planck from the University of Kiel concerned himself with observations of the radiation of heated materials. He attempted to draw conclusions from the radiation to the radiating atom. On basis of empirical data, he developed a new formula which later showed remarkable agreement with accurate measurements of the spectrum of heat radiation. The result of this formula was so that energy is always emitted or absorbed in discrete units, which he called quanta. Planck developed his quantum theory further and derived a universal constant, which came to be known as Planck's constant. The resulting law states that the energy of each quantum is equal to the frequency of the radiation multiplied by the universal constant: E=f*h, where h is 6.63 * 10E-34 Js. The discovery of quanta revolutionised physics, because it contradicted conventional ideas about the nature of radiation and energy. ~Wikipedia

Do you assume that "remarkable agreement" is an accurate epirical measurement? That it is comprehended?

 

[cottage]

Education is indoctrination, it teaches people to think in a very limited focus, a this is it and nothing else will be entered into mentality. Couple this with the social education most children get from their family, friends and general society as a whole and the picture is complete for this is also the attitude of general society. Not really surprising though, it is what is taught in our education systems and clearly shows the system is working.

That’s complete and utter nonsense. First of all, ‘education’ is a generic term, not a specific one, and it isn’t limited to institutions. ‘Indoctrination’ means conditioning someone to accept and absorb information, which has a specific content that must be adhered to rigidly, or dogmatically. Just think about it for a moment. If you maintain that indoctrination and education are synonymous then every contradictory or opposing notion that exists would also have to be taken into account, together with those subjects where there is no right or correct answer. Education, with indoctrination out of the picture, teaches that some things are true because they are self-evident, some things may true only in a probable or conditional sense, and some things being subjective are not necessarily true or false. You can’t indoctrinate somebody into thinking rationally and freely.

Yes cottage it has to me who is showing ignorance, that is your egotism side of your self respect showing. Egotism is part and parcel of the self respect process, so to is arrogance, ignorance, vanity, pride, on the other side we have humility, open-mindedness, caring and sharing. Albeit being all part and parcel of the normal human behavioural pattern any or either symptom of self respect can be mixed and matched together in a greater or lesser degree dependent on the individual concerned.

For the umpteenth time, the concept of self-respect is a term of aspiration, the very essence of which is that it should include all people. Don’t you see the contradiction of people advocating the notion of self-respect as something to aspire to if it were meant to apply only to them? It does not mean putting the self before others.

LOL we don't agree Cottage, we are not even on the same planet, let alone the same page. You want to do a China and cut all knowledge from a student in school down a particular path, I want to open up a childs knowledge and let them make up their own mind using their own critical thinking skills instead of an ignorant adults.

In order for a child to make up their own mind, all forms of religious education must be taught. This includes classes on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism et al. Only then will a child have the knowledge to compare for themselves and reach any logical and rational decision by their own volition.

Teaching somebody about every faith system under the sun doesn’t alter the fact that mystical beliefs are not truths, and with that in mind a child cannot therefore be expected make a ‘logical and rational decision’ just on the basis of other people’s doctrinal beliefs. And how would you propose to teach atheism? It isn’t a belief system (as you seem to imply by capitalising the word) but simply the state of unbelief.

Children only need a broad awareness of other religions and cultures together with an understanding of how they affect society in general. They do not need an in-depth grasp of the arcane, or, for example, a comprehensive understanding of eschatological explanations in Christianity. And if the principle is that children are to be taught faith systems without fear or favour, then the principle must uphold the belief that all faiths are valid, which must then include witchcraft, Satanism, paganism or any other metaphysical belief system, no matter how obnoxious, anti-social or even dangerous. And that would be teaching children that religion is the sacred cow that must be elevated beyond all human reason and understanding, which is the precise opposite to what we mean by the term ‘education’. It’s a minefield that schools enter at their peril.

Of course when they have reached their own rational and logical conclusion, whatever that may be, they then must be able to go out into society without fear of intimidation, bullying, reprisal in any shape or form. A big ask in today’s society, as both religious and atheist want to shove their personal beliefs down your throat.

Then the solution to your problem is easily solved, isn’t it? If religionists and atheists are shoving their beliefs down your throat then there is more the reason not to manipulate young minds, but to allow them to be free of indoctrination and let them come to their own conclusions if and when they are ready.

 

[footprints]

The truly amazing thing, to me, is that when you get right down to it even the religious will admit that "god" cannot be comprehended - and yet that does not stop them from fantastic dogmatic statements about what god thinks, feels, wants and actually does. The absurdity of it is, actually, awe inspiring.

Yeah I know what you mean Cobblestones, it gets even more inane when Atheists do the same thing. Can you believe that some Atheists say that God per se doesn't exist, then use this non-existent entity to prove a point? Human intelligence sure is awe inspsiring, in a very sad sort of way.

However nobody ever said human intelligence was rational and reasonable. Hey wait a minute, everybody says their intelligence is rational and reasonable, it is only those who oppose them who lack common sense. Perhaps the nobody who ever said, that human intelligence was ever rational and reasonable , was me.

 

[cottage]

By a self respect standard, down the path of arrogance, egotism, ignorance, vanity and pride I can agree with you and what you are getting at here. You somehow for whatever reason believe you are superior to the people who adhere to the practices which you mentioned. That you have no sympathy or compassion to try and understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. And you then conclude that some beliefs are morally reprehensible. I can definitely agree with your last statement for you personally don't consider these people worthy of your respect.

Oh don’t talk such rubbish. I utterly condemn those who would kill unbelievers; those who believe that some races are superior to others and those who think women are second-class citizens. Those people are plain wrong and their beliefs are an affront to the dignity of the human race. My sympathy and understanding lies with those who are maltreated, and not with those who persecute or even kill people for not following an interpretation of a dogmatically held mystical belief.

Please keep in mind, that most women in the countries/lands et al where you believe women are second class citizens, don't themselves believe they are second class citizens. This is further highlighted in sociology in countries like Australia, the USA et al, women of Islamic faith as just one example, are not flocking to separate themselves from their belief pattern even though they live in countries where it is their right to do so if they so choose.

You’ve missed the point by a mile. It isn’t a question of whether women can choose to wear the veil, for many do so very willingly, but the fact that men have an elevated position over women, both in Islam and according to the Bible. And nor do I think the women in those countries believe they are second-class citizens, but that is how they are viewed by their men folk, and it is as prescribed by their religion.

Down a respect path, I can only say, I do not personally adhere to killing people who go against my belief patterns, I do not personally adhere to the belief that any person is superior to another or that any race or culture is superior to another. However, as I have said before, I will respect your right to do these things as I will respect any other person who wants to do these things as well, I am sure, no, I know they have their reasons and excuses just like you do.

If you respect the ‘rights’ of people to kill others in the name of religion, then that is an obscene and disgusting position to take. What about the right to life? Or is that a mere triviality compared to someone else’s mystical beliefs?

 

[cottage]

Hoffer of course was referring to a person who had respect to respect in the first place. Like I said before, some people will respect anything as long as it pertains to the self, like the person who cannot respect what they conceive as their neighbours shortcomings and allow religious teachings in schools.

You appear to have either ignored or missed the absolutely crucial point of the Hoffer quote, which is that he acknowledges that he has shortcomings, and therefore needs to tolerate other people’s shortcomings just as does his own. The pot and the kettle are both black.
But this thread isn’t about anybody’s shortcomings; it concerns the interests of young children and the teaching of an ideology as if it were truth.

Unfortunately self respect is about putting the self first. Check these silly statements out, "You cannot respect somebody else unless you can respect yourself first." or how about this dumb statement, "You must love yourself before you can love somebody else or believe that somebody loves you."

I’m delighted to see you’ve now been looking up the meaning of self-respect, at last, even though you refuse to understand it.
Now I absolutely agree with the first quote, a maxim by which many of us try to live our lives. What is being said is that having respect for values, and having a code, by which we aspire to, we recognise the rights and values of others. But if we don’t aspire to those values ourselves then we won’t attribute them to other people - or even expect to see them in other people.
In the case of the second quote I’m not so sure. ‘Love’ is word with different meanings, and I don’t profess to understand what is meant by ‘self-love’. However, it makes sense to say if you don’t respect yourself it is easy to believe that others don’t respect you, but this is more about self-esteem, a psychological problem of low self-worth, rather than beliefs about values and principles.
But let’s return to the first example: ‘You must respect yourself before you can respect others’. It is not disputed that every thought and action that every single human makes has some form of selfish aspect to it. And, bearing that in mind, we can see it is from self-respect that empathy has its source. We see someone suffering and imagine ourselves in that position, which causes us anxiety, and so we go to the aid of the suffering person and it provides the necessary relief to the empathiser and the sufferer. This two-fold outcome doesn’t exist in the non-self-respecting person, who sees somebody suffering but doesn’t suffer him/herself from the experience, but passes by with ‘It’s got nothing to do with me’ as a response.

Respect for every individual is about not putting yourself first at the disadvantage of others and concerns the dignity of every individual. A person as an example who would want to ban religious classes from schools isn't respecting the dignity of every individual, only their own personal interests and beliefs in a self respect pattern.

Ahem! You’ve got it the wrong way round. It isn’t about banning religious classes at all; it is about allowing young children to be free from the religious dogma of parents and authorities, until the children are of an age to make decisions for themselves.

.

First I would point out the terms you and yours have two specific meanings in the english language, which are either personal or general and can be used in either context. If english isn't your first language you (this is a personal use) have a genuine excuse and reason for not knowing that.

Second of all I would like to point out I have no control over how you read or interpret the word you, whether you see it as a personal thing or a general thing. I am sure your self respect will give this answer to you.

Please don’t insult my intelligence, or yours, with such patronising remarks. This is what you said: You are akin to people who call people fat et al, make fun of them, ridicule them, even bully them with intimidation.
You were responding to me, and there is no other way of interpreting the use of the personal pronoun in that particular sentence. And now that you’ve shown you’re not prepared to stand by your insulting and untruthful remarks it actually make you look even worse in my eyes. I respect the fact that you take a different view to me, but that is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks. I believe the convention is to attack what the poster is saying, but don’t attack the poster for saying it!

 

[footprints]

That’s complete and utter nonsense. First of all, ‘education’ is a generic term, not a specific one, and it isn’t limited to institutions. ‘Indoctrination’ means conditioning someone to accept and absorb information, which has a specific content that must be adhered to rigidly, or dogmatically. Just think about it for a moment. If you maintain that indoctrination and education are synonymous then every contradictory or opposing notion that exists would also have to be taken into account, together with those subjects where there is no right or correct answer. Education, with indoctrination out of the picture, teaches that some things are true because they are self-evident, some things may true only in a probable or conditional sense, and some things being subjective are not necessarily true or false. You can’t indoctrinate somebody into thinking rationally and freely.

Of course education systems have nothing to do with conditioning people to accept and absorb information, how silly of me.

For the umpteenth time, the concept of self-respect is a term of aspiration, the very essence of which is that it should include all people. Don’t you see the contradiction of people advocating the notion of self-respect as something to aspire to if it were meant to apply only to them?

It does not mean putting the self before others.

I can see no reason why a person who would condemn and ridicule people of different beliefs would have any reason to respect themselves, albeit many people respect themsleves for doing just that.

I can see no reason why any person with intelligence would even think that sending a child to a religious class in school would have any bearing on anything. Statistics across the world do not indicate this, in fact if you look at some statistics, for most part having religious classes in school had the opposite effect in most western cultures to the extent that eventually most schools abolished them as people started turning away from religions. From sociology we find most children rebelled against it, so much in fact that when they were adults and had children of their own they enforced their rebellion. Took away one of the things which were turning people away from organised religions. Ah you have just got to love human intelligence, it is so stupid, at times.

Teaching somebody about every faith system under the sun doesn’t alter the fact that mystical beliefs are not truths, and with that in mind a child cannot therefore be expected make a ‘logical and rational decision’ just on the basis of other people’s doctrinal beliefs. And how would you propose to teach atheism? It isn’t a belief system (as you seem to imply by capitalising the word) but simply the state of unbelief.

No why should we let people use their own intelligence, why not use yours, you obviously consider it better.

Children only need a broad awareness of other religions and cultures together with an understanding of how they affect society in general. They do not need an in-depth grasp of the arcane, or, for example, a comprehensive understanding of eschatological explanations in Christianity. And if the principle is that children are to be taught faith systems without fear or favour, then the principle must uphold the belief that all faiths are valid, which must then include witchcraft, Satanism, paganism or any other metaphysical belief system, no matter how obnoxious, anti-social or even dangerous. And that would be teaching children that religion is the sacred cow that must be elevated beyond all human reason and understanding, which is the precise opposite to what we mean by the term ‘education’. It’s a minefield that schools enter at their peril.

When people are denied the full extent of knowledge available we might as well adopt a China policy.

When people are denied knowledge, those that seek it will find it anyhow. It is better to have it in a forum where it can be controlled than to send it underground, we seen how good that works when the USA decided it was a good idea to introduce Prohibition. And some people wonder why rediculous sects and movements are popping up everywhere, what would we do if it wasn't for human intelligence.

Then the solution to your problem is easily solved, isn’t it? If religionists and atheists are shoving their beliefs down your throat then there is more the reason not to manipulate young minds, but to allow them to be free of indoctrination and let them come to their own conclusions if and when they are ready.

Knowledge is the only thing which will stop a person from being manipulated. My knowledge stops you from manipulating my mind it is also my knowledge which stops the religious from manipulating my mind. On a personal level, I really don't care what the religious or atheist preach, I have availed myself to all knowledge available. I do not have a problem or issue with any of it, albeit I do have a problem and issue when people like you start to belittle other people because of their beliefs. I further have a problem and issue with people like you and your hocus pocus beliefs that a scripture class is going to bedevil the minds of children.

Freewill, Freethinking doesn't involve you, me or anybody else doing their (childrens) thinking for them. In order to think properly and rationally on any given subject, all knowledge pertaining to the subject at hand must be given to them. All knowledge, not just the knowledge that you or anybody else wants them to hear.

Personally I believe that you have got to get over the concept of your belief that children are stupid, or that you have more intelligence than a child does.

 

[cottage]

In what way does this apply to you? (and it does)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But everything I say applies equally to me. Does that answer your question, or have I missed something?

 

[footprints]

Oh don’t talk such rubbish. I utterly condemn those who would kill unbelievers; those who believe that some races are superior to others and those who think women are second-class citizens. Those people are plain wrong and their beliefs are an affront to the dignity of the human race. My sympathy and understanding lies with those who are maltreated, and not with those who persecute or even kill people for not following an interpretation of a dogmatically held mystical belief.

If you utterly condemn those who would kill unbelievers, why are you trying to kill unbelievers to your beliefs with your words? Why would you be trying to kill off religious teachings in schools?

Many things are an affrront to the dignity of the human race.

You’ve missed the point by a mile. It isn’t a question of whether women can choose to wear the veil, for many do so very willingly, but the fact that men have an elevated position over women, both in Islam and according to the Bible. And nor do I think the women in those countries believe they are second-class citizens, but that is how they are viewed by their men folk, and it is as prescribed by their religion.

I haven't missed any point, it is not what you think and believe, it is what they think and believe. So their beliefs impact on your beliefs, get over it. They have their beliefs which they are happy to live with, you have yours.

Men in Islamic countries do not view women as second class citizens, this is how you view it from your thinking.

If you respect the ‘rights’ of people to kill others in the name of religion, then that is an obscene and disgusting position to take. What about the right to life? Or is that a mere triviality compared to someone else’s mystical beliefs?

I respect a persons beliefs, not their actions. I respect a person for who and what they are and what their intelligence has given them.

I respect your rights to try and kill people with words, I therefore have to respect the rights of others who would defend themselves. Religious extremists are not the only people in the world who consider attack the best form of defence.

 

[footprints]

You appear to have either ignored or missed the absolutely crucial point of the Hoffer quote, which is that he acknowledges that he has shortcomings, and therefore needs to tolerate other people’s shortcomings just as does his own. The pot and the kettle are both black.
But this thread isn’t about anybody’s shortcomings; it concerns the interests of young children and the teaching of an ideology as if it were truth.

No I didn't miss Hoffers point. He acknowledges in his belief other people have shortcomings, so I would assume he understands his own short comings, one of them being his belief that others have short comings. He futher says he must be tolerant of his conception of what he believes are other peoples short comings.

Albeit I see nothing tolerant in wanting to stop religious teachings in schools just because some people see this as short comings in other peoples beliefs. In fact it is more intolerant than it is tolerant.

I’m delighted to see you’ve now been looking up the meaning of self-respect, at last, even though you refuse to understand it.

Now I absolutely agree with the first quote, a maxim by which many of us try to live our lives. What is being said is that having respect for values, and having a code, by which we aspire to, we recognise the rights and values of others. But if we don’t aspire to those values ourselves then we won’t attribute them to other people - or even expect to see them in other people.
In the case of the second quote I’m not so sure. ‘Love’ is word with different meanings, and I don’t profess to understand what is meant by ‘self-love’. However, it makes sense to say if you don’t respect yourself it is easy to believe that others don’t respect you, but this is more about self-esteem, a psychological problem of low self-worth, rather than beliefs about values and principles.
But let’s return to the first example: ‘You must respect yourself before you can respect others’. It is not disputed that every thought and action that every single human makes has some form of selfish aspect to it. And, bearing that in mind, we can see it is from self-respect that empathy has its source. We see someone suffering and imagine ourselves in that position, which causes us anxiety, and so we go to the aid of the suffering person and it provides the necessary relief to the empathiser and the sufferer. This two-fold outcome doesn’t exist in the non-self-respecting person, who sees somebody suffering but doesn’t suffer him/herself from the experience, but passes by with ‘It’s got nothing to do with me’ as a response.

The first quote is one of the most biggoted. You don't need to respect yourself in order to respect others. In fact respecting yourself leads to disrepecting others who do not match up or equal your own expectations of what a peson considers self respect to mean.

Having a religious belief is having a code to which some people aspire, to recognise the rights and values of others, albeit you don't seem to respect that.

Ahem! You’ve got it the wrong way round. It isn’t about banning religious classes at all; it is about allowing young children to be free from the religious dogma of parents and authorities, until the children are of an age to make decisions for themselves.

.
Of course it is the wrong way round to you, you value your self respect more than the respect of others. You don't even respect children, keep implying that they are stupid.

And at what age is your magical line where children are capable of making decisions for themselves? Children will make their own decisions regardless of what any adult thinks.

Please don’t insult my intelligence, or yours, with such patronising remarks. This is what you said:

You are akin to people who call people fat et al, make fun of them, ridicule them, even bully them with intimidation.
You were responding to me, and there is no other way of interpreting the use of the personal pronoun in that particular sentence. And now that you’ve shown you’re not prepared to stand by your insulting and untruthful remarks it actually make you look even worse in my eyes. I respect the fact that you take a different view to me, but that is no reason to resort to ad hominem attacks. I believe the convention is to attack what the poster is saying, but don’t attack the poster for saying it!

I cannot help it if you fit the pattern to which I was replying to. Would you rather I lied to you? Although this reply was to you, it is a public forum and you also pertains to anybody else in this public forum who reads the post who subscribes to your own personal belief.

I am not attacking the poster, just the words written. I cannot help it if you are attached to your words. A person who would label a person names, fat, stupid, superstitious, speaking dogma, ridiculing or demeaning other people in any way, shouldn't really have any self respect for they have nothing to be respected, albeit many people do respect themselves for doing just that.

 

[cottage]

Of course education systems have nothing to do with conditioning people to accept and absorb information, how silly of me.

Well now, isn’t that an example of plucking a few words out of context! This is what I said: ‘Indoctrination’ means conditioning someone to accept and absorb information, which has a specific content that must be adhered to rigidly, or dogmatically.

I can see no reason why a person who would condemn and ridicule people of different beliefs would have any reason to respect themselves, albeit many people respect themsleves for doing just that.

Sorry, but just who are you referring to? Who condemns and ridicules people of different beliefs?

I can see no reason why any person with intelligence would even think that sending a child to a religious class in school would have any bearing on anything. Statistics across the world do not indicate this, in fact if you look at some statistics, for most part having religious classes in school had the opposite effect in most western cultures to the extent that eventually most schools abolished them as people started turning away from religions. From sociology we find most children rebelled against it, so much in fact that when they were adults and had children of their own they enforced their rebellion. Took away one of the things which were turning people away from organised religions. Ah you have just got to love human intelligence, it is so stupid, at times.

You need to make up your mind, especially seeing that further down the page you think denying people religious knowledge drives them underground (whatever that means).

When people are denied the full extent of knowledge available we might as well adopt a China policy.

Now then, kindly explain just what ‘the full extent of knowledge’ is, as it applies to religious beliefs?

When people are denied knowledge, those that seek it will find it anyhow. It is better to have it in a forum where it can be controlled than to send it underground, we seen how good that works when the USA decided it was a good idea to introduce Prohibition. And some people wonder why rediculous sects and movements are popping up everywhere, what would we do if it wasn't for human intelligence.

I don’t think you really know what it is you are arguing for! One minute religious instruction is an innocuous practice and then next minute it is insidious.

I do not have a problem or issue with any of it, albeit I do have a problem and issue when people like you start to belittle other people because of their beliefs. I further have a problem and issue with people like you and your hocus pocus beliefs that a scripture class is going to bedevil the minds of children.

I do not “belittle people because of their beliefs”. I have consistently said that I respect a person’s right to believe as they do. And in fact I have huge respect believers for their indefatigable commitment to their faith.

 

[cottage]

Freewill, Freethinking doesn't involve you, me or anybody else doing their (childrens) thinking for them. In order to think properly and rationally on any given subject, all knowledge pertaining to the subject at hand must be given to them. All knowledge, not just the knowledge that you or anybody else wants them to hear.

Personally I believe that you have got to get over the concept of your belief that children are stupid, or that you have more intelligence than a child does.

You really don’t seem to know my view on this matter. Here is an opportunity for you: provide a summary what you think my argument is, and why you think I’m making it?

 

[cottage]

If you utterly condemn those who would kill unbelievers, why are you trying to kill unbelievers to your beliefs with your words? Why would you be trying to kill off religious teachings in schools?

Your responses are becoming ever more incoherent. ‘…trying to kill unbelievers to your beliefs with your words?’ is a nonsensical statement. Also, to say: 'Why would you be trying to kill off religious teaching in schools?' demonstrates a misunderstanding of the purposes and meaning of debate.

I haven't missed any point, it is not what you think and believe, it is what they think and believe. So their beliefs impact on your beliefs, get over it. They have their beliefs which they are happy to live with, you have yours.

Men in Islamic countries do not view women as second class citizens, this is how you view it from your thinking.

Abu dawud -Book 11, Number 2135: Narrated Qays ibn Sa'd:......'When I came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Apostle of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah.'

I respect a persons beliefs, not their actions. I respect a person for who and what they are and what their intelligence has given them.

I respect your rights to try and kill people with words, I therefore have to respect the rights of others who would defend themselves. Religious extremists are not the only people in the world who consider attack the best form of defence.

I'm sorry but the arguments that you present are weak and not a little confused, which is why I suspect we are seeing a combination of attacks upon the person and gross misrepresentation. Attacking and questioning any subject in the public domain, on a forum such as this, is perfectly correct and ethical. Equally, those who take the opposite view have the perfect right to attack and question their adversaries. It is not acceptable to make personal attacks on individuals.

 

[cottage]

No I didn't miss Hoffers point. He acknowledges in his belief other people have shortcomings, so I would assume he understands his own short comings, one of them being his belief that others have short comings.

Yes, yes! Exactly!

He futher says he must be tolerant of his conception of what he believes are other peoples short comings.

Precisely! I couldn't have put it better myself.

Albeit I see nothing tolerant in wanting to stop religious teachings in schools just because some people see this as short comings in other peoples beliefs. In fact it is more intolerant than it is tolerant.

I shall answer the above when I’ve seen your reply to my other post, where I ask what is it you understand from my general argument on this matter. Remind me of this when you've done so.

The first quote is one of the most biggoted. You don't need to respect yourself in order to respect others. In fact respecting yourself leads to disrepecting others who do not match up or equal your own expectations of what a peson considers self respect to mean.

Of course you would see it as bigoted, because you still don’t understand (or pretend not to) the concept of self-respect. The concept, very simply, is that one needs to have values in order to see and respect those values in others.

Having a religious belief is having a code to which some people aspire, to recognise the rights and values of others, albeit you don't seem to respect that.

Rubbish! Of course I respect that! All people have the right to their religious, political or ideological beliefs, and I respect that right. I don’t of course have to agree with them, just as I don’t expect them to agree with my views.

Of course it is the wrong way round to you, you value your self respect more than the respect of others. You don't even respect children, keep implying that they are stupid.

I have never said or implied that children are ‘stupid’, and the fact that you make such an outrageous comment shows either that you don’t understand my argument or that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. So I challenge you to back up that accusation with a quote.

And at what age is your magical line where children are capable of making decisions for themselves? Children will make their own decisions regardless of what any adult thinks.

When they are no longer in general or state education, of course, as I've been saying all along.

I cannot help it if you fit the pattern to which I was replying to. Would you rather I lied to you? Although this reply was to you, it is a public forum and you also pertains to anybody else in this public forum who reads the post who subscribes to your own personal belief.

I am not attacking the poster, just the words written. I cannot help it if you are attached to your words. A person who would label a person names, fat, stupid, superstitious, speaking dogma, ridiculing or demeaning other people in any way, shouldn't really have any self respect for they have nothing to be respected, albeit many people do respect themselves for doing just that.

The above remarks are well out of order, and they are disgrace to this forum. You make personal insults and then try to weasel out of them. And when the irresolution is pointed out you come back with more thinly disguised abuse. At least have the moral courage to stand by your comments and back up the allegations with quotations, instead of hiding behind innuendo.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I just can't see the purpose of discussing and comparing the meanings found in mystical beliefs. What is the intended object, if not to imply that there is truth in mysticism if only we endeavoured to find it?

Basically to ensure that if the students wish to learn about a certain faith, then ideally they should also learn that there are other faiths out there that may be just as correct as theirs. In other words, to learn of faiths but not to become completely blinded by them.

I'm sorry but I profoundly disagree with this notion of 'both sides'. There is only one side and that is the side that argues for mystical beliefs. Unbelief isn't a side. For surely nobody is suggesting that atheism should also be a subject? I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

So you don't believe science should be taught?

If science, as evolution, is true, then it certainly does debunk the Bible. But it doesn't of course debunk the possibility of God. And while those are fairly obvious conclusions, I think the whole religious thing is not a subject to be taught to school children.

By school children I assume you mean elementary grades, in which case I agree.

The darker colours help quite a bit, especially (but weirdly) if I wear sunglasses. I'm told that I may have a variation of Dyscalculia, which is normally associated with innumeracy. Yet I have no problems with numbers other than as lists, when the figures jump about a bit. In my case it's not an eye problem but a brain problem (I'll do the jokes!) There can be a comic side to it, and I'm known for getting lost in buildings and walking into doors. Oh yes, I can be the perfect idiot, when the occasion demands.

In your case I know little about the disorder, other than it seems to affect males only. Have you always had the problem or did it develop over time? I've been surprised to learn just how common the different forms of colour blindness are. I'd be interested to hear what the doctor has to say.

I found out about the colour blindness in first-year biology. We were doing a lab and part of it was regarding evolution of eyesight, so we had to test ourselves and others using Ishira (sp?) colour plates. I scored pretty low and found out there are certain plates where if you have proper colour vision, you'll see, say a 74, whereas if you have a certain vision problem you'll see, say a 21. So I'm not really sure when it first developed but that was the first time I actually compared it in a more objective way. I know that whenever I had to pick out groceries, such as bananas for my parents that I'd sometimes be unsure what they meant, such as pick out a yellow banana and all I see are light shades of green. I ignored it for a long time as I never put any thought to it until that lab came up.

Of course, just after that lab I had a lab in physics regarding some colour spectrums and such. I realized I was probably screwed but since we worked in pairs I thought my partner could tell me the colours. Nope, he had another form of colour vision! Needless to say we got pretty popular accidentally in that lab and course. We ended up asking a TA (there were at least 4-5 TAs in the lab) to come over and tell us the colour because my partner and I couldn't agree on what the colour was.

I also found out that according to others, including my parents, my pupils don't really adjust properly so they tend to stay larger longer or one stays larger than the other. I looked it up and it's called Adie's Syndrome, although I'm unsure if I have it as it affects usually women and even then it is rare, so I'm planning to ask the eye doctor about it. All I know though is if I go outside and it's sunny, if I don't have sunglasses I'll be squinting for a long time, my eyes may tear up and I cant see because it's too bright, even after 15-20+ minutes of being outside. It's been a pain because going in shopping malls, especially those I'm unfamiliar with, I've been approached by guards suspecting me of being on substances, which I wasn't. Alas, my parents or friends came and helped sort it out.

Anyways, now that that story is out of the way, what's your story?

 

[cottage]

Basically to ensure that if the students wish to learn about a certain faith, then ideally they should also learn that there are other faiths out there that may be just as correct as theirs. In other words, to learn of faiths but not to become completely blinded by them.

I'll answer this one seperately if you don't mind. At first sight what you propose sounds entirely reasonable if it is about awareness, especially and particularly in multi-faith communities such as we have in the UK. But I can tell you there would be civil unrest in parts of Britain, to put it mildly, if schools took it upon themselves to inform ethnic minority children that the religion of their parents is no more correct than other religions.

This is why I believe schools should not involve themselves in religious beliefs any more than they should involve themselves in politics, or any other ideological systems, because there is no neutral position. You can’t teach that all beliefs are somehow equal and to be respected when the very understanding of a person’s faith may mean the precise opposite. And some beliefs are just not morally acceptable and may not be consistent with the country’s laws. I really cannot tell you just how strongly I think it is wrong to put schools in the invidious position where they are required by law to meddle, even in a well-meaning way, in matters that have a deeply personal interpretation.

 

[cottage]

So you don't believe science should be taught?

I absolutely believe science should be taught of course. But religious beliefs are a personal way of seeing the world and are not open to question, criticism or any form of empircal testing, which is what we have in science.

I found out about the colour blindness in first-year biology. We were doing a lab and part of it was regarding evolution of eyesight, so we had to test ourselves and others using Ishira (sp?) colour plates. I scored pretty low and found out there are certain plates where if you have proper colour vision, you'll see, say a 74, whereas if you have a certain vision problem you'll see, say a 21. So I'm not really sure when it first developed but that was the first time I actually compared it in a more objective way. I know that whenever I had to pick out groceries, such as bananas for my parents that I'd sometimes be unsure what they meant, such as pick out a yellow banana and all I see are light shades of green. I ignored it for a long time as I never put any thought to it until that lab came up.

Of course, just after that lab I had a lab in physics regarding some colour spectrums and such. I realized I was probably screwed but since we worked in pairs I thought my partner could tell me the colours. Nope, he had another form of colour vision! Needless to say we got pretty popular accidentally in that lab and course. We ended up asking a TA (there were at least 4-5 TAs in the lab) to come over and tell us the colour because my partner and I couldn't agree on what the colour was.

I also found out that according to others, including my parents, my pupils don't really adjust properly so they tend to stay larger longer or one stays larger than the other. I looked it up and it's called Adie's Syndrome, although I'm unsure if I have it as it affects usually women and even then it is rare, so I'm planning to ask the eye doctor about it. All I know though is if I go outside and it's sunny, if I don't have sunglasses I'll be squinting for a long time, my eyes may tear up and I cant see because it's too bright, even after 15-20+ minutes of being outside. It's been a pain because going in shopping malls, especially those I'm unfamiliar with, I've been approached by guards suspecting me of being on substances, which I wasn't. Alas, my parents or friends came and helped sort it out.

Anyways, now that that story is out of the way, what's your story?

Been reading up on Aidie's Syndrome and I see it is often caused by a bacterial infection or inflammation, which damages the pupil's fibres (what am I an expert now? ). The site I looked at said the condition wasn't disabling and there are various treatments available. Your typing is perfect, which would seem to indicate that your general vision isn't affected? I'm sure the specialist will quickly diagnose the condition, whatever it may be.

My own case I believe to be neurological and hereditary, because I now recognise that my father had similar symptoms. No cure, no treatment. I just have to live with my occasional acts of stupidity.

 

[Malleus_de_Philosophia]

I'll answer this one seperately if you don't mind. At first sight what you propose sounds entirely reasonable if it is about awareness, especially and particularly in multi-faith communities such as we have in the UK. But I can tell you there would be civil unrest in parts of Britain, to put it mildly, if schools took it upon themselves to inform ethnic minority children that the religion of their parents is no more correct than other religions.

I suppose you're right on this. I just view religion as being faith-based, which it is, and the faith of one person vs. the faith of another person is just as likely to be correct. By faith, I mean in a religious context. If faith is based on having little to no evidence, then it's not really possible to say that one's religious faith is right because that implies there's reasoning and evidence. I suppose if one believes in the religion enough and doesn't bother to consider what religious faith in a general term means, then it's possible to convince oneself that they're right, although they don't have any logical arguments.

You can’t teach that all beliefs are somehow equal and to be respected when the very understanding of a person’s faith may mean the precise opposite. And some beliefs are just not morally acceptable and may not be consistent with the country’s laws. I really cannot tell you just how strongly I think it is wrong to put schools in the invidious position where they are required by law to meddle, even in a well-meaning way, in matters that have a deeply personal interpretation.

The person's faith may dictate that other beliefs are unequal and shouldn't be respected, however, the general idea of what religious faith is for whatever religion is different, as shown above. I have no problem if one's belief is ethnocentric but when it comes to schools, religion is something that affects pretty much everyone, and so it seems a bit unusual to teach science but not religion. I understand that religion is obviously more subjective than science but should that really be a reason to not teach it? If one's beliefs violate certain laws of the country or area, but if the majority of that belief isn't, then I think all of it should be taught but with emphasis on what's legal and illegal. If the entire belief system is illegal, then I think it's more reasonable to say not to teach it.

I absolutely believe science should be taught of course. But religious beliefs are a personal way of seeing the world and are not open to question, criticism or any form of empircal testing, which is what we have in science.

True, however, it's not a valid point because religion and science adhere to completley different paradigms. It doesn't make much sense to me to say that paradigm A shouldn't be taught because it conflicts with paradigm B because that seems to imply that paradigm B is a "universal truth" or standard that beliefs should meet. Science's paradigm separates itself from religion and so combining it with religion to say religion shouldn't be taught seems contradictory.

Been reading up on Aidie's Syndrome and I see it is often caused by a bacterial infection or inflammation, which damages the pupil's fibres (what am I an expert now? ). The site I looked at said the condition wasn't disabling and there are various treatments available. Your typing is perfect, which would seem to indicate that your general vision isn't affected? I'm sure the specialist will quickly diagnose the condition, whatever it may be.

I'm not sure if it is Aide's Syndrome or not but I agree, the specialist hopefully will diagnose whatever it is.

I just have to live with my occasional acts of stupidity.

Well that's something we all have to live with for ourselves.

 

[cottage]

The person's faith may dictate that other beliefs are unequal and shouldn't be respected, however, the general idea of what religious faith is for whatever religion is different, as shown above. I have no problem if one's belief is ethnocentric but when it comes to schools, religion is something that affects pretty much everyone, and so it seems a bit unusual to teach science but not religion. I understand that religion is obviously more subjective than science but should that really be a reason to not teach it? If one's beliefs violate certain laws of the country or area, but if the majority of that belief isn't, then I think all of it should be taught but with emphasis on what's legal and illegal. If the entire belief system is illegal, then I think it's more reasonable to say not to teach it.

In my view there are very, very serious problems with schools attempting to teach mystical beliefs in an inclusive way, one of which must be the principle that all metaphysical and ideological beliefs are valid.

Even some of the mainstream religion's principles are extremely contentious, open to interpretation and are likely to invoke highly charged passions in those who may have been taught differently at home. We're not dealing with facts or abstract concepts, but with profound and deeply held beliefs in many cases. I would like to think I'm wrong, but I cannot imagine too many Muslim parents being happy for their children to be compulsorily instructed in Christian beliefs, or the opposite in the case of devout or fundamentalist Christians. An awareness of different faiths may be acceptable but teaching beliefs is divisive in my view.

Education isn't a passive thing, with children just being being talked at; it also about discussion and thinking matters through. How is a teacher expected to deal with contrary views concerning homosexuality, abortion, and the status of women, not to mention the more extreme aspects of that may include martyrdom and the punishment for apostasy? But more to the point, just what is it that the children are to be taught and expected to learn?

True, however, it's not a valid point because religion and science adhere to completley different paradigms. It doesn't make much sense to me to say that paradigm A shouldn't be taught because it conflicts with paradigm B because that seems to imply that paradigm B is a "universal truth" or standard that beliefs should meet. Science's paradigm separates itself from religion and so combining it with religion to say religion shouldn't be taught seems contradictory.

In the case of religion it simply isn't up for discussion that the deity doesn't exist, or that Moses or the Prophet didn't do such and such. By defintion, no religious believer says 'There may be no God'. And therefore those arguments are off limits.

So what is it that children are to learn in religious classes? It seems to me that they are being told there are some things they cannot dispute or argue against, but must unquestioningly accept what they are taught! By comparison, science is founded in empiricism and can never be necessarily true, and no teacher would presume to inform children otherwise. That to me is the difference.

 

[footprints]

Well now, isn’t that an example of plucking a few words out of context! This is what I said: ‘Indoctrination’ means conditioning someone to accept and absorb information, which has a specific content that must be adhered to rigidly, or dogmatically.

You use the word intoctrination there in your quote, it could just as well read education and still have the same value and meaning. Education is a process of learning by indoctrination.

Sorry, but just who are you referring to? Who condemns and ridicules people of different beliefs?

Any person who would put a person down in any way shape or form. Even by denying the rights of religious bodies to teach their studies in a school, or putting their beliefs down by calling them mythical or superstitious, believing in fairytales et al.

You need to make up your mind, especially seeing that further down the page you think denying people religious knowledge drives them underground (whatever that means).

What that means is cause and effect.

Now then, kindly explain just what ‘the full extent of knowledge’ is, as it applies to religious beliefs?

With religious beliefs there are people with negative beliefs and people with positive beliefs, all knowledge must be known.

I don’t think you really know what it is you are arguing for! One minute religious instruction is an innocuous practice and then next minute it is insidious.

LOL.

I do not “belittle people because of their beliefs”. I have consistently said that I respect a person’s right to believe as they do. And in fact I have huge respect believers for their indefatigable commitment to their faith.

Denying a group of people their natural rights isn't respecting them.