Religion Discussion

[zicada]

Taken from Dan's thread, figured ill start a new one instead.
Any offtopic stuff will be deleted from this thread. Only interested in discussion. There will be no moderation of posts that are on topic.

So, do any of you christian republicans support ID (intelligent design) teaching in schools (even science class next to evolution) ?
If not in science class, but a religion type class, should there be equal emphasis on all major religion, as well as a clear message that, according to science, religious teachings are not factual in any way ?

Also, it would be nice when some of you say you're religious, if you'd also note if you're deist or theist, since there's a pretty huge difference.

Should there be a separation of church and state ?
Fact is, the US is one of the few states in which there actually is a clear separation, written in the constitution. In his letters, Jefferson talks about the need for a wall between the state and church.

So I say this, Obama, build up that wall!

When it comes to children, is it all right to force your own beliefs on them ? Or should they be given the respect to make up their own minds about weather or not they believe in religion, and if so, which religion is right ? Should they be allowed to chose wether they want to go to church and/or take part in any other religious ceremonies or happenings, without being told they will go to hell etc ?

Is it ok, for the religions who practice circumcision (bodymutilation), to do this to young children without their express consent ?

My opinion is as follows; if you really want to chop off the end of your penis, that's your choice, and by all means, but doing it to others who aren't even old enough to chose themselves, is horrible in my own opinion,- wicked, as Christopher Hitchens would say.
And don't even get me started on female body mutilation, commonly occurring in the muslim world.
Considering that any normal human being today, IF religion was not around, would think any such act of barbarism to be crazy,- we understand some of the impact religion can have on society.

What good things comes of religion, that does not have an equal or better substitution in science or nature ? IF any, why is it that religion is the only source of these things ?

Finally, can christinity, islam and judeaism (and any other major religion) be compatible with science ? how ?


Discuss!

[zicada]

A few links to talks and debates.

Talks mostly pertaining to my own non-deist, non-theist view:

From Beyond Belief Enlightenment 2.0 (basically a huge collection of scientists, psychologists, biologists and philosopohers):
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=e ... mb=0&dur=3

Richard Dawkins reading from his book The God Delusion and taking questions:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rd+dawkins


Debate: Christopher Hitchens vs Rabbi Boteach
http://www.youtube.com/v/vnMYL8sF7bQ&hl=en&fs=1

[Mayhem]

In the UK, religion is part of school by law almost as much as it is *not* part of school by lw in the US.

And yet, most schools get by quite happily with their daily "act of communal worship" being pretty generic, and in most cases the faiths mingle pretty easily. EG The Muslim girl in my class last year had no qualms about taking part in the school nativity or christmas concerts and her mum was usually in the audience giving the her daughter her full support.

(The Jehovah's witnesses are more of a problem, since they require their kids to be removed from any event where god is praised even indirectly)

Even in specific church schools (I worked for 2 terms in a Church of England school quite happily, despite being an atheist) there is a strong emphasis on learning about a wide spectrum of religions. The children re-enacted a Hindu wedding, and we learned a lot about the similarities between the way Muslims and Christians appreciate creation and shown (by example) that kindness to animals is correct behaviour according to both Jesus and Mohammed.

(Incidentally, the C of E vicar who came to give assemblies in that school every wednesday was gayer than a tree ful of monkeys on Nox!)

Despite this strong religious presence in English schools, Intelligent Design would be laughed out of the room by pretty much any UK teacher - including the RE teachers.

[Mulu]

Oh I don't know Mayhem, the UK evangelicals are pushing pretty hard for it. The UK may not be Kansas, but don't think it's immune to regressive thinking.

[Mayhem]

They may be pushing, but the teacher themselves are not going to roll over, and neither are the school governers.

[Zelknolf]

Sure, teachers won't roll over, but there are teachers fighting for the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom.

In my opinion, religion is important to teach for its cultural value; teaching a religion as a religion (and not science) is cool, especially when it's relevant to other things that are being done or when it was the greatest contribution a group made -- the early Hebrew people were incredibly creative and insightful, but golly, the only book they wrote that's still worth reading is the Bible. The same thing can be said of early Christians and the New Testament. Sure, both groups produced artwork and poetry and blah blah, but guess what the best stuff was about, and where it ended up.

I still wouldn't call the notion of intelligent design valid or credible enough to be brought into a science class. As with all academic discourse, the burden of proof is on the affirmative, and intelligent design has failed to provide proof (hypotheses, sure, but pointing to something complicated and exclaiming "Tell me that's an accident!" isn't really proof... 'cuz I can say "That's an accident; it's a rare one, but an accident nonetheless."). I'll grant that evolution isn't 100% ironclad conclusive, but the quantities of evidence are pretty profound, enough so to make it accepted scientific theory, and certainly enough to pimpslap the notion of intelligent design until it's armweary, and, thus, the response to "Where did people come from?" should be "We evolved from early primates." and not "God."

[Mayhem]

Sure, teachers won't roll over, but there are teachers fighting for the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom.

I'm speaking about the UK, and I'm pretty confident that my position is correct for all state schools, even those with a specific religious connection to C of E or the Catholic Church.

We have a national curriculum, that every school is required to teach to. If it were found that some school was not teaching what they should be in science classes, they would find themselves knee deep in Inspectors.

[danielmn]

Registered independant, so not republican, but...

Creationism in the classroom...no.

Religious history (multiple religions all taught in one class mind you) and their effects on the world taught before college...yes.

I wouldn't want creationism shoved down my future childrens' throats..but I would love for them to learn about different religions and cultures as early as possible (maturity wise) so that they can have a better understanding of themselves, the world around them, and what other people beleive so that they can respect not only whatever they choose to beleive, but the beliefs of others as well.

[MorbidKate]

Where I grew up in Eastern Canada we learned about all the major cultures and religions to a point where Canadian history and culture were separate, optional credits. I know that it got me interested in how others see the world and prepared me well for my years overseas. The best way to rid ouselves of intolerance is to learn about each other imho.

As for preaching (sure aint teachin) creationism, all I can say is that I wouldn't want one of them nutters being my surgeon. Anything taught in the classroom has to have meat on it's bones and creationism has about as much as a sun-bleached, wind-blasted carcass out in some desert.

I think the business/politics of religion lost me the day I had a debate with a Catholic Priest about miracles, dinos and carbon dating while I became intrested in Buddhism after visiting many temples in Thailand while based in Singapore. A temple to Guan Yin had a surprising impact on me.

Kate

[Swift]

As far as i know, apart from specific religious run schools, religion is quite absent from schooling in Australia, and, as far as im concerned, that is how it should stay.

Religion is a choice that everybody should make for themselves, or parents should make for their children until they are old enough to understand and make their own decision. It should not be part of, at the very least, government funded education, as it is not their role. Intelligent Design, no matter how its backers try to spin it, is firmly rooted in religious teaching and not in science and therefore has no place in schools. Let the parents teach it to their kids if they think it important.

I have no issue with, say, Religious Studies classes, that look at the history of religion and the influence of different religions. Actual bibles and prayer and shit shouldn't be anywhere near a school though.

[MorbidKate]

Swiffer,

There's a huge difference between learning about other religions from a historical perspective and having it taught or practiced in the classroom. I'm all for learning and informing but I believe in the separation of church and state.

Kate

[Swift]

Swiffer,

There's a huge difference between learning about other religions from a historical perspective and having it taught or practiced in the classroom. I'm all for learning and informing but I believe in the separation of church and state.

Kate

Hence why i support religious studies that is focused on history and influence, rather than "Time for bible study children"

[Mulu]

Right, that's what Sunday school is for. Of course, I got kicked out of Sunday school for asking too many questions.

[ç i p h é r]

Just to point out, you're creating some false associations here (common European misconceptions perhaps):

1. Religion does not belong to the Republican Party. There are plenty of religious Democrats as well. Obama is one, for example.

2. Being pro-life doesn't mean you're religious. It simply means that you believe life begins at conception. It's about deciding when rights should be awarded to children, not about imposing religious views on others. You only need to be a father or mother to understand the pro-life position, I think.

[Rusty]

It simply means that you believe life begins at conception.

Problem is, this isn't really a rationally defensible position. Stating the life begins at conception requires a definition of "life" that is extraordinarily peculiar, and that creates a whole host of inevitably unresolvable difficulties. Of course, there's not necessarily a link between being anti-choice and overly religious, but as the 'life and conception' position is rationally insecure, it relies upon the faith of religion to justify it.