Tell me, what makes this wrong.

[Rizen]

@Rizen

Or the schools could just not teach religious aspects instead of forcing dogma on kids as a kind of brainwashing. No religion should ever be taught in any school. There's no excuse.

But that’s a false equivalence. You can’t teach, for example, history without including its religious aspects. Would it be fair to teach Shakespeare without mentioning his views on religion? Would you exclude teaching about religious scientists whose religious beliefs motivated their inquiries (Newton, Mendel, Copernicus)? I think it’s not only possible but necessary to include religious aspects of these and other subjects without ‘forcing dogma on kids as a kind of brainwashing’. To not do so would be a disservice to students.

Apologies in advance if I misunderstood what you were driving at.

Boru

You missed the post where I said I agreed with arewethereyet:

Religion should never be taught in any tax funded public school except in the context of the history of a country or the social makeup of a country.  You simply cannot teach about fully about history without the mention of religion and religious based events coming into play.

While in Catholic school, I took a course called World Religions, it was actually a good class.

Agreed.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Rizen


But that’s a false equivalence. You can’t teach, for example, history without including its religious aspects. Would it be fair to teach Shakespeare without mentioning his views on religion? Would you exclude teaching about religious scientists whose religious beliefs motivated their inquiries (Newton, Mendel, Copernicus)? I think it’s not only possible but necessary to include religious aspects of these and other subjects without ‘forcing dogma on kids as a kind of brainwashing’. To not do so would be a disservice to students.

Apologies in advance if I misunderstood what you were driving at.

Boru

You missed the post where I said I agreed with arewethereyet:

Religion should never be taught in any tax funded public school except in the context of the history of a country or the social makeup of a country.  You simply cannot teach about fully about history without the mention of religion and religious based events coming into play.

While in Catholic school, I took a course called World Religions, it was actually a good class.

Agreed.

Gotcha. I think it was the word ‘aspects’ that threw me off. Mea culpa.

Boru

[Nanny]

So no education is better than attending a school run by a religious organization? Have you been out of the country ever? Do you think every country has a public school system equivalent to that of the USA? The world is not as simple as you make it out to be.

This is a pathetic ad hominem. What I'm sayings is simply keeps schools academic. You're completely missing my point. Any schools with religious teachings can function without them. The options never included no school at all- you just made that up. I'm sick of having religion forced down my throat. Schools teaching religion as fact are archaic and wrong anywhere in the world. It's 2025; why are we still living in the dark ages?

I didn't realize your sensitivity. You stated " No religion should ever be taught in any school. There's no excuse." and I am suggesting that in the world there are places where the choice is attend a religiously-affiliated school or no school at all. That's a damn good excuse in my book.

I also think human beings should be free to attend the school of their choosing. That includes people who choose to attend religiously-affiliated schools. No one should force their will on everyone. There is no excuse for that.

There are cases where the benefits of an education outweigh the risks of religion.

[Rizen]

This is a pathetic ad hominem. What I'm sayings is simply keeps schools academic. You're completely missing my point. Any schools with religious teachings can function without them. The options never included no school at all- you just made that up. I'm sick of having religion forced down my throat. Schools teaching religion as fact are archaic and wrong anywhere in the world. It's 2025; why are we still living in the dark ages?

I didn't realize your sensitivity. You stated " No religion should ever be taught in any school. There's no excuse." and I am suggesting that in the world there are places where the choice is attend a religiously-affiliated school or no school at all. That's a damn good excuse in my book.

I also think human beings should be free to attend the school of their choosing. That includes people who choose to attend religiously-affiliated schools. No one should force their will on everyone. There is no excuse for that.

There are cases where the benefits of an education outweigh the risks of religion.

You're hanging on to the false belief that society can't operate without being dependent on religion and using it as an excuse to force religion on impressionable children. Religion is a cancer on society.

[Nanny]

It's not belief. It's a fact. Human beings are still religious. Get used to it.

I share your opinion on religion. It's none of my business what foolishness my neighbors believe.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I didn't realize your sensitivity. You stated " No religion should ever be taught in any school. There's no excuse." and I am suggesting that in the world there are places where the choice is attend a religiously-affiliated school or no school at all. That's a damn good excuse in my book.

I also think human beings should be free to attend the school of their choosing. That includes people who choose to attend religiously-affiliated schools. No one should force their will on everyone. There is no excuse for that.

There are cases where the benefits of an education outweigh the risks of religion.

You're hanging on to the false belief that society can't operate without being dependent on religion and using it as an excuse to force religion on impressionable children. Religion is a cancer on society.

(Bold mine)

Must be a bloody slow-acting one.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Anthropologically speaking, you don't have a society until you have a civil religion, at the very least. Whether or not that society can then operate (I assume we mean persist in some sort of stable state?) being an additional question. If when we say that religion shouldn't be taught in schools what we mean is people shouldn't be indoctrinated into (insert area majority theism here) in public schools - well, ofc not. That would be trampling on our rights, for starters. A fact christians in the us seem to forget as often as they insist on some jesus in the classroom but remember as soon as a mosque comes to collect that money. Whether or not a person who believes we shouldn't be teaching any religion - in the sense of explicit indoctrination - would then also agree that civil religion is among those things that shouldn't be taught probably has a relationship with their opinions about social cohesion and nationalism.

We can fairly assume that the us doesn't need christian religion to operate - but what we're seeing right now is the breakdown of american civil religion - as the nations aggrieved whites and theocrats begin to believe that america fucking sucks..and, ofc, as there happens to be alot of money in pandering to those fools both over and under the table.

[Paleophyte]

The difficulty with philosophy is that there are no standards. There's no clear cut way to distinguish between a genuine philosopher and some chucklefuck pandering their ideology. It's at this point in the discussion that somebody points out that we don't do that so that we don't hobble philosophy by limiting the discourse, and there is a valid argument to be made for that. There's also a lot of god-bothering turd-polishers parroting the same line, mortally frightened that some of their last remaining habitat will come under the same scrutiny that got them laughed out of the rest of the modern world. Without some metric to tell them apart, your average skeptic views the 'philosopher' with distrust, and rightly so. Theologians have had precious few other options ever since science started demanding results, schools banned nuns and The Lord's Prayer, congregations started looking for meaning, and the Arkham Assylum for the Criminally Insane ended out-patient lobotomies. Philosophy will be regarded as one of the last havens of people pretending to think while under the influence of religion until they finally put up the big sign that says,

"You must be at least this tall --->

To go on the Philosophy ride!"

You'd think there would be a fairly simple solution to all of this. After all, philosophy includes these self-proclaimed "Philosophy of Religion" chaps and you'd think that they'd be able to distinguish between their product and everybody else's. They're usually pretty intense about their exclusivity, but they're oddly silent in this particular case. Perhaps we need to stop throwing food into their cage until they figure that out.

Until then, there are some simple critical tools that we can use to discriminate between the signal and the noise. To separate the chaff from the unalloyed bullshit. Is somebody engaging in blatant equivocation in a shameless attempt to draw unjustified parallels between belief in their imaginary friend and science? Apologists masquerading as philosophers love to try and link science and philosophy, philosophy and religion, religion as a whole and their particular set of peculiar personal beliefs. It's almost as if they thought that the contrast produced by juxtaposing the successes of science with the manifest failures of the churches on so very many fronts was a good thing for them. Putting lipstick on a pig only serves to illustrate how nasty the pig looks and that somebody involved is a particularly dim-witted con artist. So no, science isn't philosophy, just as chemistry isn't a branch of alchemy, astrology isn't a subsect of alchemy, and people aren't fish. The one may have roots in the other, lost in the mists of time, but they've been off doing their own thing for so long as to have changed into something new and altogether different. Anybody still trying to conflate the two is really just abusing both of them in a shameless attempt at promoting their unwholesome religion fetish.

[Angrboda]

^ Was this meant for a different thread?