The Louisiana Public School Cramming Christianity Down Students’ Throats

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


You did a lot more than ask for evidence to my opinion. You were pendantic in your response at the very least.

I will respond to your request for evidence how religion has caused more harm than good in history and will provide you numerous links to threads on ATS attacking the LGBT community and in almost all cases done so by members who call themselves Christian.

Rather than derail this thread anymore, I will send this to you as a private message.

Seede

You said "Are you as upset with Muslim murderers as you seem to be with loving people such as Christians? Sorry, it just doesn't add up in my way of thinking. Did you shout as loud in protest to the Arabs who slaughtered over 3,000 souls in 9/11? I believe you have another agenda other than what you are trying to portray." These were your words and something that had no relevance to the OP. With that in mind why say it?

reply to post by flammadraco

 

@ flammadraco

Yes those were my words directed to the Op in comparative language. I did not use the word Islam but used the words Arabs and Muslims in comparison to the OP usage of Christians. The meaning should be clear to any one of knowledge of basic English. The Op (in my opinion) presented his or her thread in insinuating that this ACLU directive was true without presentation of both sides of the accusation. That is wrong and was a deliberate insinuation that the school and school board was wrong. That is not honest in any way that you look at it.

If this trial had found that the accusations were true then the OP would have been justified in a fair presentation of this matter. But not to group all Christianity in one target. That is unfair and not true at all. A fair presentation would be to name the Christian organization or organizations for what they are. There are many Christian organizations that take offense in Christian Bashing and which do not resemble one another except to say that they are Christ Jesus followers. That should be realized by you and the OP as well as others. Just as all atheists are not on the same page, all Christians are not on the same page. How are we going to build a 1st class civilization with this nation fanning the flames of discord at ever turn of the corner?
Don't you think that tolerance is required to build? Regardless of what you or I believe we both should be tolerant of the other.
Wishing you well.

Thus the reason for my response in which I said I hate the radical extreme elements of all religions for reasons already given.

reply to post by rupertg


Almost any class that would do some Shakespeare always handed out a couple of worksheets on the KJV at the same time. It was usually something in the OT, mostly Psalms, and it was just so we could get a feel for how varied poetry and prose could be in Shakespearian era English.

It's how I learned what Wherefore meant. Wherefore is the question and Therefore is the answer. Therefore, modernly, is used to basically state "all the previous stuff is to state why the following must be". WHY being the most important part of that. Wherefore? Therefore. Why? This is why.

Needless to say, since I grew up with the KJV anyway, I rarely had a problem with Shakespearian English.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
How are the parents supposed to know the school had bible verses painted everywhere and the teachers used Christian based test questions? How are they supposed to know that certain teachers would end up calling their adopted child's beliefs stupid?

Parent teacher conferences. Parents actually checking homework instead of just letting their kids do work that they never see. Open House.

Problem is that the main complaint I hear from teachers is the SEVERE lack of parent participation, in this area. This part ain't "Poor poor ignorant parents", it would be more "wilfully ignorant parents" which is what's normal around here.

Seriously, I live in this state. I know teachers, and I know how little parents tend to be involved until it bites their butt for not being involved. I think that if there IS anything that warrants this lawsuit, that it could have been handled a lot better and faster than this.

By the way, I'm not liberal, I barely even know what that means. All I know is that it's a label used to keep us divided and fighting amongst each other. I'm a human being just like anyone else, why does there have to be any extra labels being thrown around?

Problem is that that's how we're geared to LEARN.

Seriously. look at a kid. They have a cat in their home, and all 4 legged animals are cats because they're alike. Then they differentiate and divide by LABELS further and further out until they have hippos, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, and bears!

Seriously, any child psych or education course would teach you that. That's why the big thing 10 years ago was "Scaffolding".

So when people start with the labelling, it's something so ingrained that 5 year olds do it. It is merely a tool that our brain uses. It would be better to rail at the twisted use of a natural tool to divide humanity against each other.

reply to post by Grimpachi


What is harmful in having a Jesus poster in a public school?

I don't believe in rights that end, and don't get the metaphor of drawing up rights on some sort of map with boundaries. You simply have free speech or you don't. It doesn't end anywhere and doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

Religions are a branch of philosophy. It isn't right to ban an expression just because it happens to be a religious one. Should teachers not be allowed to teach the golden rule just because it is found in the Christian Bible as "Do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you"? Banning religion from schools is banning expression.

Once again, taxpayers should be able to decide how to waste their own money, whether that be teaching Buddhism or anything else. And then parents should have the option of sending their money to any other school of their choice if they are unhappy with it.

Who gave the school the right to teach your kid that Christ is a lord? The people who discovered free speech. See how I directly answered your question? I wish others would do that with my question "What is the harm in having a Jesus poster in a public school?". I'm advocating taxpayers declare whatever they want to, including prayer in school or their religion at a polling place. Or they can remain silent. There is no such thing as an unbiased education and there is no such thing as unbiased reporting either. Its better to simply reveal your biases and agenda so people can figure it out easier.

flammadraco

daskakik

FriedBabelBroccoli
This study indicates that your claim is false as greater government restriction reduces perceptions of life satisfaction.

Maybe it's just me but I didn't see his statement as meaning government restriction of religion but instead more like common courtesy on the part of the individual to keep their religion out of other peoples faces.

I never mentioned government involvement as you quite rightly pointed out, but when folk have nothing else to attack they see things that are not there.

FriedBabeBroccoli seems to be able to copy and paste loads of text that is totally irrelevant to the thread and yet has not once answered a question put to them, instead they ask for prove and evidence of an opinion. Using this same line of thinking then surely we should all be asking for prove and evidence that Christianity was from the "Word of God" and not as I believe a tool to install law and order into an ancient civilizations. Perhaps they can show me prove that their messiah fed thousands of people from one loaf of bread and walked on water and arose from the dead and the list goes on. The only evidence Christians have of this is a book written 1690 years ago which was 324 years after Christ died by a bunch of men who could not agree on what to put into the bible and what to omit including the fact that most of these men did not even agree that Christ was in fact the messiah or the son of god.

Here is an example of the results of efforts to create a society where religion is kept in private;

Young Turks
en.wikipedia.org...

The Young Turks (Turkish: Jön Türkler, from French: Les Jeunes Turcs, or Turkish: Genç Türkler) was a Turkish nationalist reform party in the early 20th century, favoring reformation of the absolute monarchy of the Ottoman Empire. Officially known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP; Turkish: İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti),[1] their leaders led a rebellion against the absolute rule of Sultan Abdulhamid II in the 1908 Young Turk Revolution.[2] With this revolution, the Young Turks helped to establish the Second Constitutional Era in 1908, and the Committee of Union and Progress, based on the ideas of the Young Turks, ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 until the end of World War I in November 1918.[3]

. . .

The term "Young Turks" has since come to signify any groups or individuals inside an organization who aggressively pursue liberal or progressive policies, or advocate for reform.

. . .

Materialism and positivism
See also: Ahmed Riza, Namık Kemal, Ziya Gökalp, and Yusuf Akçura

Another guiding principle for the Young Turks was the transformation of their society into one in which religion played no consequential role, a stark contrast from the theocracy that had ruled the Ottoman Empire since its inception. However, the Young Turks soon recognized the difficulty of spreading this idea among the deeply religious Ottoman peasantry and even much of the elite, as the Ottoman Empire had not experienced the Enlightenment in the same way that Western Europe had. The Young Turks thus began suggesting that Islam itself was materialistic. As compared with later efforts by Muslim intellectuals, such as the attempt to reconcile Islam and socialism, this was an extremely difficult endeavor. Although some former members of the CUP continued to make efforts in this field after the revolution of 1908, they were severely denounced by the Ulema, who accused them of "trying to change Islam into another form and create a new religion while calling it Islam".[14]

Positivism, with its claim of being a religion of science, deeply impressed the Young Turks, who believed it could be more easily reconciled with Islam than could popular materialistic theories. The name of the society, Committee of Union and Progress, is believed to be inspired by leading positivist Auguste Comte's motto Order and Progress. Positivism also served as a base for the desired strong government.[14]

And shortly after . . . Genocide;
Armenian Genocide
en.wikipedia.org...

The Armenian Genocide[7] (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն Hayots’ Ts’yeghaspanut’yun), also known as the Armenian Massacres and by Armenians as the Great Crime (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն Mets Yegherrn)[8][9] was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. It took place during and after World War I and was implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and forced labor, and the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches to the Syrian Desert.[10][11] The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians, the Greeks and other minority groups were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy.

"The Armenian Genocide" PBS Special



So please continue believing that a society without religion has not been attempted at that it couldn't possibly be worse than those with a religion.

People will commit atrocities with or without religion so your entire argument is bunk. Historical precedent shows this. But you will likely ignore the clear evidence that your theory is absurd and delusional.

-FBB


PS
The fact that you must resort to claims that I have not answered any questions, and then continue on to attacking what you call "my messiah" just shows you have no evidence to support your opinion.

Face it, your opinion is BS and you are just upset that someone is challenging your world by asking for evidence to support it and you are coming up short.

Every time rhetoric like that which you are spewing gains widespread acceptance atrocities follow shortly thereafter.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

That's dishonest. Using examples of governments exterminating the religious is not the same as people being allowed to practice their religion of choice as long as it is within certain limits.

reply to post by fractal2


Free speech has nothing to do with it.

And "philosophy" is not appropriate subject matter for kids. They need to be taught logic (mathematics and science) first in order to process the information.

and no, jesus is not science

daskakik
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

That's dishonest. Using examples of governments exterminating the religious is not the same as people being allowed to practice their religion of choice as long as it is within certain limits.

I starred you, but I would disagree that it was dishonest as from the beginning it was not merely committing genocide. They were molding a multicultural union which was supposed to embrace science in a religious fashion and religion was not to enter the public sphere.

This is not the Khmer Rouge style execution of expulsion, it was orders that came down from the leaders years after coming to power.

My point was that it degenerated into bloodshed very quickly which is counter to the utopian belief presented by certain members of this thread.

-FBB

Now if you don't think that this is an example because it did not succeed the way you thought it should, well then you are a true believer.

Just google state atheism and start rad historical texts concerning the time. The idea that if people just keep things to themselves everything will work out is called denial.

State Atheism
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


I don't think anyone has claimed they want state atheism as the core of our government, that is just as bad if not worse as having a theocrocy.

The governemnt should be neutral on the subject of religion or God, they should not be forcing an opinion or belief on its people. Secularism is the way to go because it allows freedom of religion. Look at history to see what theocrocies have done to its people. Rome ordered the genocide of thousands of pagans for not converting to their newly established state religion of Christianity, it would be no different with state atheism I believe.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

From what you posted it seems that the Young Turks were trying to force their beliefs on others and were not successful.

However, the Young Turks soon recognized the difficulty of spreading this idea among the deeply religious Ottoman peasantry and even much of the elite, as the Ottoman Empire had not experienced the Enlightenment in the same way that Western Europe had.

Not the same as letting people worship as they wish as long as they let others do the same.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

I don't think anyone has claimed they want state atheism as the core of our government, that is just as bad if not worse as having a theocrocy.

The governemnt should be neutral on the subject of religion or God, they should not be forcing an opinion or belief on its people. Secularism is the way to go because it allows freedom of religion. Look at history to see what theocrocies have done to its people. Rome ordered the genocide of thousands of pagans for not converting to their newly established state religion of Christianity, it would be no different with state atheism I believe.

edit on 1/31/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

The young turks were not state atheists.
They began with the practice of exactly what you are describing.
Things then progressed very quickly after it proved to not work so well.

But w/e just pretend your utopian fantasy of a secular society where all people get along is going to become a reality once all the hate filled genocidal religious people start keeping their religion private.

-FBB

daskakik
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

From what you posted it seems that the Young Turks were trying to force their beliefs on others and were not successful.

However, the Young Turks soon recognized the difficulty of spreading this idea among the deeply religious Ottoman peasantry and even much of the elite, as the Ottoman Empire had not experienced the Enlightenment in the same way that Western Europe had.

Not the same as letting people worship as they wish as long as they let others do the same.

Go read a history book.

The genocide began after the turks lost a significant portion of their landmass due to people not wanting to take part in the society they were promoting. You will find it under the First Balkan War (en.wikipedia.org...)
There were minor uprising taking place all over and orders eventually came down to begin what was later termed genocide. You see the centralized government accused the Armenians of attempting to gain political autonomy.

Point being that the road to hell (war, hate, bigotry, genocide) is paved with good intentions like those "championed" by the Young Turks. Simple fact of the matter is that regardless of the ideology being endorsed, atrocities will happen.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


What's so bad about secularism?

You have three choices here: a theocrocy where the government forces its chosen religion on the people going as far as genocide, secularism where the government doesn't care what your beliefs are and everyone has freedom of religion, or state atheism where the government forces atheism onto the people going as far as genocide to get it.

Which sounds the best to you?

FriedBabelBroccoli
The genocide began after the turks lost a significant portion of their landmass due to people not wanting to take part in the society they were promoting.

And this wasn't because of the reason you posted and I reposted?

Point being that the road to hell (war, hate, bigotry, genocide) is paved with good intentions like those "championed" by the Young Turks.

But, that isn't what was posted earlier in the thread.

Simple fact of the matter is that regardless of the ideology being endorsed, atrocities will happen.

If that is in fact true then, what difference does it make what ideology is endorsed.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

What's so bad about secularism?

You have three choices here: a theocrocy where the government forces its chosen religion on the people going as far as genocide, secularism where the government doesn't care what your beliefs are and everyone has freedom of religion, or state atheism where the government forces atheism onto the people going as far as genocide to get it.

Which sounds the best to you?

edit on 1/31/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

How short your memory is, remember this quote?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
What makes you think it would be any worse without religion? If there is no religion there is no god to kill and maim for, we would be living for now instead of what's after death.

I merely referring you to evidence that without religion 'things' wont necessarily be better.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
I just googled khmer rouge and it says that the movement tried to destroy Buddhism, so how is that Buddhisms' fault exactly? And I'm sure a bunch of monks meditating most days is really "oppressive", lol.

I was speaking of Burma . . . (en.wikipedia.org...)

Myanmar (Burma) is a multi-religious country. There is no official state religion, but the government shows preference for Theravada Buddhism, the majority religion.[1] According to both the statistics published by the Burmese government and the CIA, it is practiced by 89% of the population,[2][3][4] especially among the Bamar, Rakhine, Shan, Mon, and Chinese. The new constitution provides for the freedom of religion; however, it also grants broad exceptions that allow the regime to restrict these rights at will.[1]

You keep changing your argument as evidence gets presented. From religion is the worst, to how could things get any worse without religion, to a selection of three options . . .

The reality is, it doesn't matter what form of government is in charge. Atrocities are going to happen no matter what religious or secular ideology is being preached.

-FBB

daskakik

FriedBabelBroccoli
The genocide began after the turks lost a significant portion of their landmass due to people not wanting to take part in the society they were promoting.

And this wasn't because of the reason you posted and I reposted?

Point being that the road to hell (war, hate, bigotry, genocide) is paved with good intentions like those "championed" by the Young Turks.

But, that isn't what was posted earlier in the thread.

Simple fact of the matter is that regardless of the ideology being endorsed, atrocities will happen.

If that is in fact true then, what difference does it make what ideology is endorsed.

1) No these people wanted to rule themselves and publicly practice their religion (ie the state).
2) Yes that is exactly what was posted earlier in the thread about people being free to practice whatever religion they wanted but that science should be what is taught officially.
3) Exactly my point! There are people in here claiming religion is the source of all evil or that it should be oppressed. I am pointing out, as history shows, that the same horrors are going to happen regardless.

-FBB

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


My opinion changes with new evidence, guilty as charged! Send me to jail ASAP, I'm a danger to society.

Wait a minute, that's how it should work. Now my knowledge has grown and I have changed for the better. Don't tighten the handcuffs too tight.

I agree with you by the way, it doesn't matter what type of government is in place, they will always find a way to commit atrocities. But at least with a secular government they do not favor one belief over another and do not kill based on belief, that puts it a notch above the others in my opinion.

FriedBabelBroccoli
1) No these people wanted to rule themselves and publicly practice their religion (ie the state).
2) Yes that is exactly what was posted earlier in the thread about people being free to practice whatever religion they wanted but that science should be what is taught officially.
3) Exactly my point! There are people in here claiming religion is the source of all evil or that it should be oppressed. I am pointing out, as history shows, that the same horrors are going to happen regardless.

1) But they also wanted others to practice with them.

2) No, what started all this was the phrase "We would all get along much better if religion was something kept in the privacy of your own home and places of worship." I don't see anything about what would be taught officially.

3) I don't think the same horrors happen regardless. I think societies which have freedom of religion have shown to be less prone to these types of acts. Just to be clear, governments that force a "secular religion" upon the populace do not fall into that category.

daskakik

FriedBabelBroccoli
1) No these people wanted to rule themselves and publicly practice their religion (ie the state).
2) Yes that is exactly what was posted earlier in the thread about people being free to practice whatever religion they wanted but that science should be what is taught officially.
3) Exactly my point! There are people in here claiming religion is the source of all evil or that it should be oppressed. I am pointing out, as history shows, that the same horrors are going to happen regardless.

1) But they also wanted others to practice with them.

2) No, what started all this was the phrase "We would all get along much better if religion was something kept in the privacy of your own home and places of worship." I don't see anything about what would be taught officially.

3) I don't think the same horrors happen regardless. I think societies which have freedom of religion have shown to be less prone to these types of acts. Just to be clear, governments that force a "secular religion" upon the populace do not fall into that category.

edit on 31-1-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

1) I never said that they were any better than the young turks, they exiled almost one million muslims fighting in the area. The region would later be involved in another murderous campaign against muslims.

2) Basically the official stance of the turks was to keep your religion to yourself while the state publicly supported science.

Is your issue that the state of people keeping their religion private and out of public never occurred. This should be an extremely telling point as I highlighted earlier by comparing it to the plight of the homosexual community. Bot being allowed to publicly express your beliefs (or way of life) is extremely damaging to the psyche and every society that has attempted such was usually very dysfunctional.

3) Are you considering the US a secular government? Look towards unjustified wars in Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and all the deaths there.

Does a secular government exist that fits your criteria, or is it yet to have manifested?

-FBB