Why religion and public schools should be separate
By SailerFraud
The Christian fundamentalists try to impose their religion in public schools. When they are informed there is a diverse student population filled with other religions, the neo-Christians claim there is discrimination because public schools won't impose their religion as the sole standard.
Sometimes it takes an outside reference point to get out of one's shortsightedness. Suppose a religious nut claims to have communal powers with the Greek mythological god Zeus. He fervently fights for his Greek Gods (Zeus, Hercules, Aphrodite, Hermes, etc...) to be recognized as the standard religion in public schools and courtrooms. He does not want his Greek gods to be taught as fiction or mythology; he wants them to be recognized as alive and the truth.
Naturally, you the taxpaying citizen get defensive. You ask him to prove that the Greek gods are real and not fiction. He claims to have meet the Greek gods in his dreams and has communal powers with them. He points out that there are ancient artifacts showing they existed.
You the logical citizen say those artifacts are a thing of the past and does not prove those Greek gods are alive. Yet, he gets more defensive and says he felt their presence.
Now, let's examine the Christian wingnut who wants his religion to be imposed in our public school system and courtrooms. He says he has communal powers with God and Jesus. He says there are ancient artifacts 2000 years ago.
However, those outside of this Christian bubble keep affirming that he is a lunatic zealot and needs to be in a mental asylum. Now do you Christians see why we look at you very peculiar when you impose your religion with your irrational arguments?
The Christian fundamentalists try to impose their religion in public schools. When they are informed there is a diverse student population filled with other religions, the neo-Christians claim there is discrimination because public schools won't impose their religion as the sole standard.
Sometimes it takes an outside reference point to get out of one's shortsightedness. Suppose a religious nut claims to have communal powers with the Greek mythological god Zeus. He fervently fights for his Greek Gods (Zeus, Hercules, Aphrodite, Hermes, etc...) to be recognized as the standard religion in public schools and courtrooms. He does not want his Greek gods to be taught as fiction or mythology; he wants them to be recognized as alive and the truth.
Naturally, you the taxpaying citizen get defensive. You ask him to prove that the Greek gods are real and not fiction. He claims to have meet the Greek gods in his dreams and has communal powers with them. He points out that there are ancient artifacts showing they existed.
You the logical citizen say those artifacts are a thing of the past and does not prove those Greek gods are alive. Yet, he gets more defensive and says he felt their presence.
Now, let's examine the Christian wingnut who wants his religion to be imposed in our public school system and courtrooms. He says he has communal powers with God and Jesus. He says there are ancient artifacts 2000 years ago.
However, those outside of this Christian bubble keep affirming that he is a lunatic zealot and needs to be in a mental asylum. Now do you Christians see why we look at you very peculiar when you impose your religion with your irrational arguments?
Comments
Fundies may talk about the end of the world: Science Makes It Possible!
I live in Ontario, Canada, where the "Public" system includes the Catholic school system. I've noticed the politicians, in order to refrain from paying for all faith-based schools, now refer to them as "Public Catholic Schools" as if that somehow makes it mean they are not publically funding one particular denomination's educational system. Then they whine about not having enough money. Hey, I have an idea. Stop funding the Catholic boards and put all that money into the REAL public system!
Personally, I think religion should be taught in the schools. All of them. Let everyone see who borrowed what from where, see the differences, the similarities. I think we'd all be better for it (and more reasonable about it).
Now, Lev, go and find out how many fundies just love the aforementioned weapons. Most of these monsters want to see a world war so bad they can smell it. In their lunatic "theology" such a war would usher in the second coming of their jesus.
Just one more thing, sweet cheeks. Try to find one christian, just one, who protested the atomic bombing of Japan. Have you seen the pictures of the birth defects that the radiation caused? It is horrifying. These same christians will wring their hands over abortions and whine about how life is sacred.
Listen, cookie, if I had my way, the Congress of the US would be filled with atheist scientists, and christians would not even vote.
What alternative does a child have against the monopoly? None, of course. They are still forced into an "us against them" mentality. School, State, Country chauvinism.
God Bless America.
Robert Ingersoll for President.
This intrigues me---and I very well could be misunderstanding---but is teaching science to a child, therefore, considered "indoctrinating" them? Is it "forcing" something detrimental on to their life-experience? Do they "lose" in the long run, being versed in chemistry, physics, etc? How about the teaching of individualism? In other words---at what point would the educational system be "neutral" enough for you?
Speaking of---it's not like Atheists are saying that our currency should say, "In NO God we Trust"; we're saying it should be neutral...e.g..it shouldn't say anything about "God".
A smarmy leader is only as strong as his moronic sheeple are weak.
However, so few Christian fundies can't see outside the box and wonder why people are resistive when they thry to impose their religion as the sole truth.
BTW, I am the author of this article.
"Um, forgive me, but what is the difference between indoctrinating children with one specific religion, or indoctrinating them with State Beliefs?"
I have read some of the responses to Alleee's post and I don't believe that she when she said "State Beliefs" that she meant science, the arts, etc. I think that she meant patriotism and the indoctrinatory beliefs that we have in our governmental system, (Pledge of Allegiance, patriotic songs and poems, etc). We are taught, as small children, many untruths that we believe into adulthood, unless abused of these false notions at some time. “Truths” such as:
>At the beginnings of our country, everybody no longer wanted to live under British rule so we had a revolution, etc. Truth: Most people did not want to be independent of the British. The Founding Fathers were part of a minority.
> The troops at Valley Forge starved in the winter because there was no food to feed them. Truth: There was food but they did not have the money to pay for it so the local farmers sold their produce to the British.
> Washington, when as a boy confronted with his misdeed of chopping down the cherry tree, famously said “I cannot tell a lie…..” Truth: This story was made up by Mason Locke Weems, a christian parson who took it upon himself to write a biography of the Washington after his death.
> Chief Seattle gave an impassioned speech about the government, the ecology, his people, etc. Truth: Never happened. The speech contains false statements such as his seeing thousands of dead buffalo on the plains, slaughtered by hunters from passing trains, yet Chief Seattle never left the northwest in his life, and never saw buffalo or trains.
> The film of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima is of the actual flag raising. Truth: This was a reenactment, done because the group of Marines who did the original flag raising did not contain all “white” people.
Our government has used and continues to use the same tools of indoctrination that religion uses. They deliberately rewrite history and then present it as historical fact. They use a process known as the “Big Lie” whereby a falsehood is repeated over and over until it is generally accepted as truth. They downplay the negative aspects of our history, (the Pilgrims were brutal and sadistic totalitarians, who tortured and killed all those who did not believe as they did. Our ancestors slaughtered FAR more Indians than the Nazis did Jews, etc.) A politician who makes a speech is striving more for the emotional manipulation of the crowd than in stating something of actual substance.
Alleee, I don’t see a difference.
I think we need to bring back School House Rock! Updated subjects could include things like the scientific method and what a theory really is.
If I have been talking like a dipshit, I apologise to Alleee and to all here.
Naah, hell no, don't sweat it. I've enjoyed everything you've said thus far. Stick around.....and like I really need to tell you to not be bashful when it comes to wit and sarcasm? Huh! = )
The last thing I want to do is alienate a fellow freethinker, and I really want to be on good terms with Alleee. Anyone who is Hellbound must be okay. The christians, on the other hand, can go and be damned for all I care.
Thanks, boom, for making the newcomer feel welcome. Several people have in the past week, and I am loving it.
They would rather see the United States under a "Christian Dictatorship" instead.
More and more powerful WMDs, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? The President of Iran himself said the age of nuclear weapons is past. Considering that, one would have to provide evidence that scientists are, in fact, developing new nuclear weapons, especially on the scale of something like the Hiroshima bomb. I'll wait for you to do that.
As for the other weapons: again, where is your evidence? If you've been paying attention to the world around you, you would have noticed a push towards making weapons LESS lethal. SCIENTISTS are developing chemical and biological agents to be used in battle that render the enemy unconscious or immobilize them. These new agents are used by police all the time; SWAT teams are especially fond of them. And the last time I checked, Lev, it wasn't Christians pushing for these new, non-lethal weapons; it was scientists.
Now, Lev, you don't have to respond; I know you won't. I'm just satisfied in the knowledge that the next time you or one of your ilk brings up this nonsense about scientists developing "more and more powerful" WMDs that your asses will be throroughly flogged. Peace!
Best damn idea ever.
Post a Comment