Education is the solution
-
Thanks for clearing it up. :) I agree that a good education is important, and hope that you never misunderstood me on that point. However, I'll never think that education is more than just a part of the fix. Why? Let's take the criminals as an example. "Guy" is born into an average, middle-class, American family. He gets along well with his friends and ok with his family. As he grows up he gets his education from the public school system and obtains better than average grades. Somewhere along the line Guy decides that an unmanned (unwommanned?) purse on a park bench is "fair game" and takes it home. No one ever notices, and he doesn't get in trouble. -- He has just been educated that the law doesn't catch everyone. So, he tries it a few more times and still doesn't get caught. After a while he decides to try other forms of crime. The process continues until (hopefully) he gets caught somewhere. No, that isn't a real-life example. But it is sooo possible, that I wouldn't be surprised if I only had to change the name in order for it to be a real-life example. The point is this: No stand-up-and-tell-people-stuff educational system is ever going to be enough. People learn things (are educated) through experience as well. If their experience teaches them that they can get away with the things they _want_ to do, some will try it. At this point, the normal concept of "education" is irrelevant. Their selfish desires are in control of their actions. Until you fix that, people will take advantage of the holes that they find (or think they found), and criminal activity will always be around. John
I'm agree with you , but what else can be done ? You will have to give everybody a chance . What they will choose to do with it, that's theirs problem ! Eventually they will end the days of theirs life in a nice and cozy jail, but that's another problem. Or, as is the case now they will have to disappear because it's no place for them in the society. I think there is no final answer to this kind of questions, all you can do is to keep the hope alive :) !
-
So, which 'education' will be the official one? Christian? Hindu? Atheist? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Ah, but we are talking about actions based on religious beliefs. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
So basically you are saying that you would teach an atheistic based philosophy? Which of course is a religion to many people. Religion: (4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. So, I guess in your new world order, everyone must be an atheist. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
So basically you are saying that you would teach an atheistic based philosophy? Which of course is a religion to many people. Religion: (4) A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. So, I guess in your new world order, everyone must be an atheist. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
I'm not teaching anything , and for the moment I'm not planning to build any brave new world. I guess you are an educated person. Tell me, have you received an 'atheistic based philosophy' , or what ? The education from school had something to do with religion ? ( physics , biology, mathematics, geography, etc ). I thought the days when religion is considered a science are gone , starting from Galileo.
-
So, which 'education' will be the official one? Christian? Hindu? Atheist? Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
I'm not teaching anything , and for the moment I'm not planning to build any brave new world. I guess you are an educated person. Tell me, have you received an 'atheistic based philosophy' , or what ? The education from school had something to do with religion ? ( physics , biology, mathematics, geography, etc ). I thought the days when religion is considered a science are gone , starting from Galileo.
Ok, I don't get it. On one hand you say education is the key, but on the other you say are not teaching anything. Which is it? The only way for education to be the key is if you attack the heart of some of the more fundamental elements of the Islamic religion. You can't have it both ways which is my point. In your idea of an educated solution is to remove elements of a religion you don't agree with. By doing that you are in fact forcing your own religious beliefs on someone else. Which is EXACTLY what so many atheists whine about. Your argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that religion free education will change theses people. How? The only way you will change their minds is by changing their religious and moral views. Now many have tried to argue that schools can teach ethics. They make the claim that ethics exist outside of morals. Morals, of course, are most commonly associated with religion. Unfortunately, this argument is grossly flawed since the difference in ethics and morals is semantic at best and over exaggerated by people who try to distance themselves from religion. So, since ethics and morals are basically the same thing, then schools are teaching morals. The morals which you wish to impose are at odds with the morals of the Islamic religion. So, I ask again, which religion should be the standard for all education? (Oh, and just in case you are wondering, I am agnostic.) Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Ok, I don't get it. On one hand you say education is the key, but on the other you say are not teaching anything. Which is it? The only way for education to be the key is if you attack the heart of some of the more fundamental elements of the Islamic religion. You can't have it both ways which is my point. In your idea of an educated solution is to remove elements of a religion you don't agree with. By doing that you are in fact forcing your own religious beliefs on someone else. Which is EXACTLY what so many atheists whine about. Your argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that religion free education will change theses people. How? The only way you will change their minds is by changing their religious and moral views. Now many have tried to argue that schools can teach ethics. They make the claim that ethics exist outside of morals. Morals, of course, are most commonly associated with religion. Unfortunately, this argument is grossly flawed since the difference in ethics and morals is semantic at best and over exaggerated by people who try to distance themselves from religion. So, since ethics and morals are basically the same thing, then schools are teaching morals. The morals which you wish to impose are at odds with the morals of the Islamic religion. So, I ask again, which religion should be the standard for all education? (Oh, and just in case you are wondering, I am agnostic.) Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
You can be a religious person without being a fanatic. I just want to say that it's better to have from where to choose.An educated person makes better choices. CHOICE is the word. Religion is for you, and you only, it's something personal. Education must be the for everyone. PS : I don't like to make sophisms.
-
Ok, I don't get it. On one hand you say education is the key, but on the other you say are not teaching anything. Which is it? The only way for education to be the key is if you attack the heart of some of the more fundamental elements of the Islamic religion. You can't have it both ways which is my point. In your idea of an educated solution is to remove elements of a religion you don't agree with. By doing that you are in fact forcing your own religious beliefs on someone else. Which is EXACTLY what so many atheists whine about. Your argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that religion free education will change theses people. How? The only way you will change their minds is by changing their religious and moral views. Now many have tried to argue that schools can teach ethics. They make the claim that ethics exist outside of morals. Morals, of course, are most commonly associated with religion. Unfortunately, this argument is grossly flawed since the difference in ethics and morals is semantic at best and over exaggerated by people who try to distance themselves from religion. So, since ethics and morals are basically the same thing, then schools are teaching morals. The morals which you wish to impose are at odds with the morals of the Islamic religion. So, I ask again, which religion should be the standard for all education? (Oh, and just in case you are wondering, I am agnostic.) Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
There is nothing wrong with religions as such. The people who practice the religions always try to use it to their advantage. I think the western world probably had their share of Christian fanaticism during the crusades. Then they had the racial fanaticism of Hitler. India has seen Hindu fanaticism. There was a mosque destroyed in north india and later caused much bloodshed in riots. Recently these hindu fanatics also killed a few Christian missionaries. But, the majority Hindu population of India has no reservations against the Muslims. Muslim countries (Afganisthan in particular) are practising Muslim fanaticism. According to a Pakistani newspaper, all activities by the government that would be difficult to impose on people are done in the name of Islam. This makes it difficult for anyone in that country to oppose it/ The idea is to have promote a 'live and let live' or 'moderate' approach to everything. People have to be 'educated' to live with other points of view that differ from theirs. But, the point is - how do we achieve this around the world? The education can be Christian, Hindu, atheist or Muslim. But, this point is the education should 'firmly implant' in the minds that the world is not made up of people, who share your point of view, but let them live with their views (without hurting others, ofcourse). -- Thomas
-
You can be a religious person without being a fanatic. I just want to say that it's better to have from where to choose.An educated person makes better choices. CHOICE is the word. Religion is for you, and you only, it's something personal. Education must be the for everyone. PS : I don't like to make sophisms.
Oh well, I guess I am talking to the wall. You just will never see that your idea of 'well educated' means someone who agrees with you. By saying that a 'well educated' person wouldn't chose the path of his religion implies that the process of education is teaching a different set of moral and ethical standards. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
There is nothing wrong with religions as such. The people who practice the religions always try to use it to their advantage. I think the western world probably had their share of Christian fanaticism during the crusades. Then they had the racial fanaticism of Hitler. India has seen Hindu fanaticism. There was a mosque destroyed in north india and later caused much bloodshed in riots. Recently these hindu fanatics also killed a few Christian missionaries. But, the majority Hindu population of India has no reservations against the Muslims. Muslim countries (Afganisthan in particular) are practising Muslim fanaticism. According to a Pakistani newspaper, all activities by the government that would be difficult to impose on people are done in the name of Islam. This makes it difficult for anyone in that country to oppose it/ The idea is to have promote a 'live and let live' or 'moderate' approach to everything. People have to be 'educated' to live with other points of view that differ from theirs. But, the point is - how do we achieve this around the world? The education can be Christian, Hindu, atheist or Muslim. But, this point is the education should 'firmly implant' in the minds that the world is not made up of people, who share your point of view, but let them live with their views (without hurting others, ofcourse). -- Thomas
I hope nobody thinks I am actually supporting the more extreme views of the Islamic religion. My main point is to get people to realize we are trying to force a different set of morals on these people. In this case, I think it is justified given 'greater good' of all. Being from a religious background, I still have strong ties to it even though now I consider myself agnostic. (Personally, I hate the term atheist since part of the beauty of most of these religions is that the existence of god can't be disproved. Thus, I think it is arrogant to say there is no god.) I had a HUGE intellectual awakening when I started considering agnostics and atheists as just another form of religion. It really made me a much more tolerant person. It has also lead me to become a very strong supporter of religious freedom. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
I hope nobody thinks I am actually supporting the more extreme views of the Islamic religion. My main point is to get people to realize we are trying to force a different set of morals on these people. In this case, I think it is justified given 'greater good' of all. Being from a religious background, I still have strong ties to it even though now I consider myself agnostic. (Personally, I hate the term atheist since part of the beauty of most of these religions is that the existence of god can't be disproved. Thus, I think it is arrogant to say there is no god.) I had a HUGE intellectual awakening when I started considering agnostics and atheists as just another form of religion. It really made me a much more tolerant person. It has also lead me to become a very strong supporter of religious freedom. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Pursuing an education through out the world that promotes religious/racial/idealistic tolerance is the ultimate objective that we should strive for. Once this is achieved, the whole world is a liberal democracy. But, as put forward here, it is NOT the process. It is the ultimate objective. All people who work towards this goal will face a very difficult time in many parts of the world. Afganistan plans to execute Christian missionaries for practising Christianity in their country. How can we ever sell this concept to them? This is too alien a concept for them to even understand. Probably will need a long time and a really powerful and progressive leader in that country to pull it off. International pressure will bring more resentment and more acts to vent the resentment. It has to come from within. As of what the democratic world can do, they can be equivocal and tell these people - "We live our way. You live your way. Please do not interfere in our way of living. If you do, be ready for consequences". Every nation has the right to deal or not deal with others. So, the nations with gross acts violating human rights can be isolated by the democratic ones, where every individual (irrespective of religion, sex, sexual preferences, caste, creed, race or status in society) has the same rules and rights. -Thomas
-
There is nothing wrong with religions as such. The people who practice the religions always try to use it to their advantage. I think the western world probably had their share of Christian fanaticism during the crusades. Then they had the racial fanaticism of Hitler. India has seen Hindu fanaticism. There was a mosque destroyed in north india and later caused much bloodshed in riots. Recently these hindu fanatics also killed a few Christian missionaries. But, the majority Hindu population of India has no reservations against the Muslims. Muslim countries (Afganisthan in particular) are practising Muslim fanaticism. According to a Pakistani newspaper, all activities by the government that would be difficult to impose on people are done in the name of Islam. This makes it difficult for anyone in that country to oppose it/ The idea is to have promote a 'live and let live' or 'moderate' approach to everything. People have to be 'educated' to live with other points of view that differ from theirs. But, the point is - how do we achieve this around the world? The education can be Christian, Hindu, atheist or Muslim. But, this point is the education should 'firmly implant' in the minds that the world is not made up of people, who share your point of view, but let them live with their views (without hurting others, ofcourse). -- Thomas
Just a double check. Did you mean what this sounds like? If so, your statement requires a belief that tolerance is more important than anyone else' religious belief. Meaning, you would then be intolerant of religions that don't fit your view of tolerance... In other words, your belief system is more important than theirs, and they must change. Sounds religious, doesn't it? Maybe that's not how you look at it. If so, please correct me. :) Some people definitely do look at things that way, and the real problem then is that they want morals without religion. However, it's just not possible. John
-
Pursuing an education through out the world that promotes religious/racial/idealistic tolerance is the ultimate objective that we should strive for. Once this is achieved, the whole world is a liberal democracy. But, as put forward here, it is NOT the process. It is the ultimate objective. All people who work towards this goal will face a very difficult time in many parts of the world. Afganistan plans to execute Christian missionaries for practising Christianity in their country. How can we ever sell this concept to them? This is too alien a concept for them to even understand. Probably will need a long time and a really powerful and progressive leader in that country to pull it off. International pressure will bring more resentment and more acts to vent the resentment. It has to come from within. As of what the democratic world can do, they can be equivocal and tell these people - "We live our way. You live your way. Please do not interfere in our way of living. If you do, be ready for consequences". Every nation has the right to deal or not deal with others. So, the nations with gross acts violating human rights can be isolated by the democratic ones, where every individual (irrespective of religion, sex, sexual preferences, caste, creed, race or status in society) has the same rules and rights. -Thomas
-
Just a double check. Did you mean what this sounds like? If so, your statement requires a belief that tolerance is more important than anyone else' religious belief. Meaning, you would then be intolerant of religions that don't fit your view of tolerance... In other words, your belief system is more important than theirs, and they must change. Sounds religious, doesn't it? Maybe that's not how you look at it. If so, please correct me. :) Some people definitely do look at things that way, and the real problem then is that they want morals without religion. However, it's just not possible. John
To a degree this is true. Which was a point I was trying to make. If a religion falls too much outside the accepted norms of an area (in this case the world), it is common that it is forced to change. My point was that it was not about education, but about changing someone's ethical or moral beliefs. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Just a double check. Did you mean what this sounds like? If so, your statement requires a belief that tolerance is more important than anyone else' religious belief. Meaning, you would then be intolerant of religions that don't fit your view of tolerance... In other words, your belief system is more important than theirs, and they must change. Sounds religious, doesn't it? Maybe that's not how you look at it. If so, please correct me. :) Some people definitely do look at things that way, and the real problem then is that they want morals without religion. However, it's just not possible. John
Hi John, I can have a belief system that says that "All men below 6 ft should be killed". It is not a constructive belief system. Any form of belief that puts one above the other based on broad criteria like sex, religion or race has led to wide spread oppression in the world. The examples are plenty - Nazi Germany, Apartheid in South Africa etc. There is always some sort of belief system that should prevail. I think that it should be one where every individual can live without fear in a dignified manner. Civil liberties should be based on individual rights and any belief that does not violate that is acceptable in a liberal democratic society. That is the foundation of all democracies in the world. If we are willing to compromise on that, there is no civilization. In our societies, the struggles have changed from one of physical dominance to one of economic dominance, that come about through excellence. We also try to make sure that we have social security structures in place that people do not suffer and have the basic amenities of life. I know that the democracies around the world have not been successful in doing those, but I believe that if anyone of us is given a choice to live in any part of the world, it will a democratic one, where you know that you have rights. Atleast, no one has come up with a better option. The question of tolerance: We should be tolerant to the tolerant. If we try to be tolerant to the intolerant, we are dead! Because intolerance means that they are not going to tolerate us because of our beliefs. We remain tolerant to the intolerant by never initiating violence. But, if we are forced to choose between 'being tolerant' and 'being existent', I believe the latter would be an obvious choice for many of us. This is my view and I believe the basic tenets on which democratic societies of the world function. - Thomas
-
There are many poor people in the world but few commit suicide attacks...way...? If you teach little childrens that the US is the big satan and Israel is the small one just because they admire freedom you will get a suicide terrorist Words can make more damage than bullets. Education is the solution to terrorism. Tomer Dror Israel
Well, it seems that those terrorists were pretty well educated. They knew how to fly planes. And that's exactly what made them so deadly efficient. Education will not transform a barbarian into a civilized man instantly. It takes much more than technology to perform that. And it's callsd time. Lots of it. Generations. Dejan
-
Well, it seems that those terrorists were pretty well educated. They knew how to fly planes. And that's exactly what made them so deadly efficient. Education will not transform a barbarian into a civilized man instantly. It takes much more than technology to perform that. And it's callsd time. Lots of it. Generations. Dejan
'Educated' is not the right word. It should rather be 'civilized' meaning 'fit for living in a civil society' - honouring the liberties of other individuals, irrespective of who or what they are and the willingness to 'act', if these tenets of the society is under threat. To inculcate these in people takes more than just time. It takes great people also. Europe and America had their share of great people, who having the power to suppress people, believed in civil liberties. Let us hope all peoples of the world get many of such men and women. - Thomas
-
Ok, I don't get it. On one hand you say education is the key, but on the other you say are not teaching anything. Which is it? The only way for education to be the key is if you attack the heart of some of the more fundamental elements of the Islamic religion. You can't have it both ways which is my point. In your idea of an educated solution is to remove elements of a religion you don't agree with. By doing that you are in fact forcing your own religious beliefs on someone else. Which is EXACTLY what so many atheists whine about. Your argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that religion free education will change theses people. How? The only way you will change their minds is by changing their religious and moral views. Now many have tried to argue that schools can teach ethics. They make the claim that ethics exist outside of morals. Morals, of course, are most commonly associated with religion. Unfortunately, this argument is grossly flawed since the difference in ethics and morals is semantic at best and over exaggerated by people who try to distance themselves from religion. So, since ethics and morals are basically the same thing, then schools are teaching morals. The morals which you wish to impose are at odds with the morals of the Islamic religion. So, I ask again, which religion should be the standard for all education? (Oh, and just in case you are wondering, I am agnostic.) Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Tim I would be interested to hear how Atheism is a religion. I am an atheist and to me it just means that there is no God or Omnipresent Being looking after the world and it's people. No religion and no trying to force the ther is no God message down anyones throat. Isn't being agnostic just the same as fence sitting. Not wanting to take a stance in case it pisses someone off, playing it safe for the second coming of Christ. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone