Separation of Church and State gets confusing in France
-
David Kentley wrote:
I have an idea: how about the science that is actually based on science is taught as science.
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Fuck you god botherer - I couldn't give a shit if Bible's can be found in schools, or the Koran for that matter, it's good for children to have access to historically meaningful fiction no matter how contradictory or ridiculous the content when examined in detail. It's the indoctrination of children, (and adults), by individuals in positions of power using absolutism that causes a problem for me as an atheist. IMHO, people should learn to use the mental faculties they have to the best of their ability and to use their own knowledge, judgement and experience to form opinions based on available evidence.
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
-
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Fuck you god botherer - I couldn't give a shit if Bible's can be found in schools, or the Koran for that matter, it's good for children to have access to historically meaningful fiction no matter how contradictory or ridiculous the content when examined in detail. It's the indoctrination of children, (and adults), by individuals in positions of power using absolutism that causes a problem for me as an atheist. IMHO, people should learn to use the mental faculties they have to the best of their ability and to use their own knowledge, judgement and experience to form opinions based on available evidence.
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
Rhys666 wrote:
It's the indoctrination of children, (and adults), by individuals in positions of power using absolutism that causes a problem for me as an atheist. IMHO, people should learn to use the mental faculties they have to the best of their ability and to use their own knowledge, judgement and experience to form opinions based on available evidence.
And, of course, there is absolutely no possibility of indoctrination of children by the state using science to promote its own agenda. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Fuck you god botherer - I couldn't give a shit if Bible's can be found in schools, or the Koran for that matter, it's good for children to have access to historically meaningful fiction no matter how contradictory or ridiculous the content when examined in detail. It's the indoctrination of children, (and adults), by individuals in positions of power using absolutism that causes a problem for me as an atheist. IMHO, people should learn to use the mental faculties they have to the best of their ability and to use their own knowledge, judgement and experience to form opinions based on available evidence.
Rhys "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it" They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance." Terry Pratchett
Rhys666 wrote:
f*** you god botherer - I couldn't give a sh*t if Bible's can be found in schools, or the Koran for that matter, it's good for children to have access to historically meaningful fiction no matter how contradictory or ridiculous the content when examined in detail. It's the indoctrination of children, (and adults), by individuals in positions of power using absolutism that causes a problem for me as an atheist. IMHO, people should learn to use the mental faculties they have to the best of their ability and to use their own knowledge, judgement and experience to form opinions based on available evidence.
Most atheists seem to disagree with you and I'm sure for argumentative convenience, most here will reverse their previous positions so that they're not self-contradicting. My point here is that this is evidence of the dogmatism of atheism. The concept of a separation of church and state is often invoked in order to limit the presence of any sort of theistic dialog in as expansive a defintion as possible. Well if the Catholic Church actively argues that evolution should be taught and not intelligent design or fundamentalist creationism, that should, per the previous separation of church and state arguments, conflict with that concept and actually result in evolution being restricted from schools. But that won't happen and no atheist who previously invoked separation of church and state of their argumentative basis will believe that the teaching of evolution be restricted. By being inconsistent on this topic, they are in fact, validating my previous claims that atheism is dogmatic and should be treated as a religion. Basically, their goal is not to prevent theocracy but rather to create their own.
-
"There is a growing distrust of science in public opinion, especially among the
young, and that worries us," said Philippe Deterre, a research biologist and Catholic
priest who organized a colloquium on creationism for scientists at the weekend."There are many issues that go beyond strictly scientific or strictly theological
explanations," he said at the colloquium in this university town southwest of Paris.
Deterre's Blaise Pascal Network promotes understanding between science and
religion.OK, so now what do we do with this? The Catholic Church in France is attacking Christian and Muslim fundamentalist teachings of a literal interpretation of biblical creationism and is saying that evolution needs to be taught instead. So...By the principles of a separation of church and state, I think that means that evolution can't be taught in public schools because its church doctrine. Is that right? Or is it really just that anything can be taught as long as it doesn't contradict with atheistic desires. I'm so confused!
Red Stateler wrote:
By the principles of a separation of church and state, I think that means that evolution can't be taught in public schools because its church doctrine. Is that right? Or is it really just that anything can be taught as long as it doesn't contradict with atheistic desires. I'm so confused!
Oh poor you. :rolleyes: Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
Red Stateler wrote:
By the principles of a separation of church and state, I think that means that evolution can't be taught in public schools because its church doctrine. Is that right? Or is it really just that anything can be taught as long as it doesn't contradict with atheistic desires. I'm so confused!
Oh poor you. :rolleyes: Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience. It's not simply an argument of science, but also of church doctrine, which cannot be taught in schools regardless of whether its in or out of a science class. In this case we have overlapping church doctrine and atheist dogma. The fact that you no longer invoke separation of church and state is illustrative of the fact that your beliefs are, in fact, dogma of its own breed.
-
David Kentley wrote:
I have an idea: how about the science that is actually based on science is taught as science.
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Red Stateler wrote:
What do we do when the two dogmas overlap?
They don't overlap, it's just the Catholic Church realizing how pathetic and untrue the "theory" of Creationism is. If you believe in the lie of Creationism, then you should bow your head in shame. regards,
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
What do we do when the two dogmas overlap?
They don't overlap, it's just the Catholic Church realizing how pathetic and untrue the "theory" of Creationism is. If you believe in the lie of Creationism, then you should bow your head in shame. regards,
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
They don't overlap, it's just the Catholic Church realizing how pathetic and untrue the "theory" of Creationism is. If you believe in the lie of Creationism, then you should bow your head in shame.
Dogmatic to the core. It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are. It's almost...Islamic in nature.
-
Rhys666 wrote:
It's the indoctrination of children, (and adults), by individuals in positions of power using absolutism that causes a problem for me as an atheist. IMHO, people should learn to use the mental faculties they have to the best of their ability and to use their own knowledge, judgement and experience to form opinions based on available evidence.
And, of course, there is absolutely no possibility of indoctrination of children by the state using science to promote its own agenda. :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, of course, there is absolutely no possibility of indoctrination of children by the state using science to promote its own agenda.
AFAIK, the only agenda being promoted by the state is to join the armed forces to help pay for college. If you have additional examples, please list them.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
They don't overlap, it's just the Catholic Church realizing how pathetic and untrue the "theory" of Creationism is. If you believe in the lie of Creationism, then you should bow your head in shame.
Dogmatic to the core. It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are. It's almost...Islamic in nature.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are.
Athiesm is not a religion you should look it up.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's almost...Islamic in nature.
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion. regards,
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are.
Athiesm is not a religion you should look it up.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's almost...Islamic in nature.
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion. regards,
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion.
Yup. Totally Islamic in nature.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience. It's not simply an argument of science, but also of church doctrine, which cannot be taught in schools regardless of whether its in or out of a science class. In this case we have overlapping church doctrine and atheist dogma. The fact that you no longer invoke separation of church and state is illustrative of the fact that your beliefs are, in fact, dogma of its own breed.
Red Stateler wrote:
you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience.
A bit like Christianity abandoning sound scientific reason for a load of indoctrinated creationist crap. I love creationists, they are soooo funny with their funny little notions.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
David Kentley wrote:
I have an idea: how about the science that is actually based on science is taught as science.
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
-
David Kentley wrote:
I have an idea: how about the science that is actually based on science is taught as science.
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
You are trying to stir debate where there is none. If two (or more) religious groups are pushing their own agendas in the school, the answer is simple: ignore them all and do whatever is best for the kids, which would be to teach science in a science classroom.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion.
Yup. Totally Islamic in nature.
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Islam is a race? You should tell John Hicks, genius.
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
They don't overlap, it's just the Catholic Church realizing how pathetic and untrue the "theory" of Creationism is. If you believe in the lie of Creationism, then you should bow your head in shame.
Dogmatic to the core. It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are. It's almost...Islamic in nature.
I'm very tolerant of most faiths, and I accept the meaning of the word faith over knowledge. You and every other religious person are most welcome to believe anything you want, and to teach that faith to interested parties[1], but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact. [1] Cue conspiracy argument about the minds of interested parties being killed off by the commie atheist lefties.
-
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
Brady Kelly wrote:
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
That argument doesn't hold up. Intelligent design is nowhere in the Bible and actually contradicts it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
You are trying to stir debate where there is none. If two (or more) religious groups are pushing their own agendas in the school, the answer is simple: ignore them all and do whatever is best for the kids, which would be to teach science in a science classroom.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
You are trying to stir debate where there is none. If two (or more) religious groups are pushing their own agendas in the school, the answer is simple: ignore them all and do whatever is best for the kids, which would be to teach science in a science classroom.
I completely expect there to be no debate from atheists because evolution is consistent with your dogma and therefore any religion that endorses it is supporting a dogma to which you don't object. But that's exactly the problem. Separation of church and state, which is what is invoked in order to keep theism out of public schools, demands that there is a debate. The fact that there isn't simply demonstrates that atheists are interested in pushing their dogma by using "separation of church and state" as a political tool. In fact, their use of it is contradictory to that concept as it seeks to establish atheism as the state religion.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience. It's not simply an argument of science, but also of church doctrine, which cannot be taught in schools regardless of whether its in or out of a science class. In this case we have overlapping church doctrine and atheist dogma. The fact that you no longer invoke separation of church and state is illustrative of the fact that your beliefs are, in fact, dogma of its own breed.
Red Stateler wrote:
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience.
No I'm not. Separation of church and state is still alive and well. When it comes to public school curriculum, the students should be taught science, without regard to whether religious groups have chosen to embrace all or parts of it. So the church remains separate from the state. The church can believe whatever it deems convenient; the state doesn't care.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
I'm very tolerant of most faiths, and I accept the meaning of the word faith over knowledge. You and every other religious person are most welcome to believe anything you want, and to teach that faith to interested parties[1], but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact. [1] Cue conspiracy argument about the minds of interested parties being killed off by the commie atheist lefties.
Brady Kelly wrote:
but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact.
It's interesting how atheists believe that they have unique access to this right, isn't it?