Child abuse ?

[Faith No More]

To me, it is not a question of what to value most. It is a question of what does the government have a right to regulate.

[Tiberius]

And one has to realise that in a democracy there is no such thing as party\ideological control over institutions which are by the very meaning of their existance meant to be unbiased - such as the scientific community.

examples: BBC, ZDF, WDR, public Universities, public schools

Erm, yes there is. If the democracy has a majority of one party in power, then that party have the ability to control practically anything they desire in the country, and that includes all the examples you listed. I don't know why you keep on thinking that a democracy treats all opinions equally...it doesn't. The opinions of those in power count.

A system which works needs not to be abolished.
The german educational system is built on the principle of fairness since it gives everyone the same basic and scientific education.
If parents want to teach their kids creationism they can always emigrate to the US.

A system which works and yet violates rights most certainly needs to be abolished. Your view of "fairness" is entirely different to other people's view of "fairness". Indeed, there are probably a lot of people who think your educational system is unfair, since not everyone may want or even require what the state considers "education".

If your solution for people who do not like the system is to get them to leave, I think my point is proved. You argue for fair democracy, and yet seem to want people who don't agree with your particular beliefs to leave. The entire point of democracy is that everyone's voice is supposed to be equal.

The nazis werent elected into power but putched to power in a coalition with the conservative party which thought it could tame them.

*sigh*

Ignoring history now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party...on_results

The Nazi's rose to power through democratic elections. Period. It matters not that they gained full power through a coalition; the entire reason they were able to make a coalition was that they were the largest party in elected office. Whichever way you try to bend it, the Nazi's used democratic means to get elected.

If I clearly present facts in a source (such as a code of law)! And one ignores such (and cales one a totalitarian)! that is dishonest or proof of intelectual cowerdess or both.

Laws are not "facts". I never called you a totalitarian.

And who will take that critizism serious who is fundamentaly a ignorant bafoon who ignores things which contradict his views?

I fail to see how that is relevant. You still have the right to criticize; are people supposed to bow to your criticism? What a world that would be. In any case, you'll find it is a human trait amongst all of us that we tend to ignore things which contradict our views.

No there is the possibility of it existing. And after unvailing more and more proof of evolution within the fossile record and genetic analasys - denying evolution is selfdeceiving, and very ignorant towards things achieved because of that knowlege!

Yes...and that possibility must exist. That was my point. As long as that possibility must exist, you cannot in any sense of the word, claim science as absolute truth. Ergo, you cannot hold it up as the one method for establishing truth.

But it surely is in the US if one looks at the evangelical community in the bible belt.

Have you ever been to the Bible Belt, or spent time with evangelical families?

Well and it is the only reasonable thing to do. Any other form of reasoning as the theory of Critical Rationalism is not accepted and hasnt brought satisfying results.

Or do you know a better epistological theory on which to base the aquirement of knowlege?

"Satisfying results" =/= Knowledge. Not in any sense of the word. I don't believe we do "acquire knowledge". I don't think acquisition of knowledge is possible (to the extent that we know we have knowledge). Without a fundamental method of verifying something as true (in an absolute sense), and without that method being self-verifiable, all we have is a heck of a lot of beliefs. That is all science ever gives us: beliefs. Very well researched and justified beliefs, of course, but they are nowhere near the realm of knowledge.

ok,
was he educated on a ordenary curiculum or was he thought that "evolution is a lie" and "secularism is evil" or other hogwash?

It is not that i dispise all religious people - i dispise the fundamentalist who wants to take over sociaty - who might be a minority - but exists.

He was educated (as far as I know) in the standard educational system in this country. He doesn't believe in evolution, and he thinks militant secularism is on the rise and is a bad thing. The educational system did nothing to stop him having these beliefs, because his parents taught him anyway. Either you stop parents from teaching their kids stuff when they get home (and mark my words, some parents will instruct their kids to ignore most of what their teacher says), or you let parents teach them what they want, with no control from the state. Any other way is simply a waste of time and resources. I'd rather see schools teach a wide range of subjects that fits everyone's requirements than the horrible standardization that goes on today.

Children should be taught facts as fact. Teach your children of your beliefs if you want but don't say your belief is fact.

Great, so what method do you have that establishes fact then? Or do you extend this "teach your children your beliefs" to the classroom as well, so we teach them the beliefs of science, history, geography, etc?

I would have a problem with that. Although, I don't see how that is relevant. Fallacious comparison.

You're equating science and fact with mere belief. No.

No, I'm equating science with belief (not "mere" belief). All of science is belief; it's highly reasoned and supported by evidence, but it never crosses into the realm of fact or knowledge.

Again, that word; believe. Why do you think people's beliefs have as much right as fact in governing a society or ANYTHING, for that matter?

Because ultimately, they are all we have.

"We shouldn't stop parents from teaching children their belief as fact on the basis that they might believe their belief."

No. "We shouldn't stop parents from teaching children their belief as fact, because it is their belief, and their child...and their right."

[Kousbroek]

No. "We shouldn't stop parents from teaching children their belief as fact, because it is their belief, and their child...and their right."

Does that mean that it is immune to criticism ?

[Shell B]

No. "We shouldn't stop parents from teaching children their belief as fact, because it is their belief, and their child...and their right."

Does that mean that it is immune to criticism ?

Obviously not. Immune to authoritarian intervention? Yes, it should be. Let's all try to remember what the OP is here. No one who disagrees with the OP is saying anyone else lacks a right to an opinion.

[Napoléon]

To me, it is not a question of what to value most. It is a question of what does the government have a right to regulate.

Aren't rights granted to each of us because we value them enough? I thought it was pretty synonymous to be fair. Governments only grant rights to people because that's what the people value as important.

[Tiberius]

Does that mean that it is immune to criticism ?

Of course not, but people in this thread are arguing for more than just criticism; they are arguing that such teaching should not be allowed at all.

[Kousbroek]

Obviously not. Immune to authoritarian intervention? Yes, it should be.

Parents aren't immune to that at least not in Holland, depends on what they teach their kids.

Let's all try to remember what the OP is here. No one who disagrees with the OP is saying anyone else lacks a right to an opinion.

So once again, having the right to an ( public ) opinion means that you can say whatever you want ?

[Darkstar]

So once again, having the right to an ( public ) opinion means that you can say whatever you want ?

Once again, so long as someone isn't endangered, pretty much. There are some others (like slandering and lying in court) but otherwise no.

For the record, I don't think the governmnet even can regulate what parents teach their children (as in, how would they know?). Nonetheless, while they may be doing their children a disservice, it would be pointless to try to enforce any such thing for a number of reasons. As for school, that is where people should be able to go to learn the truth, so it won't be as important what lies/truths children are taught by their parents.

Perhaps I have misunderstood Tiberius's argument, but how exactly do you propose that school curriculum is regulated if not by governments and scientists (and other scholars...scoence isn't the only subject, you know)? If it is by voting (among the scientifically illeterate), wouldn't it all be just one big 'curriculum ad populum'? I know that oppressive governments will spread lies and propoganda via government control of the curriculum, but they would do this regardless of whether or not government regulation is considered acceptable. I also know that non-oppressive goverments could still do this , (if not to a lesser extent) which is why I suggested scholars in the appropriate fields be consulted.

[Kousbroek]

For the record, I don't think the governmnet even can regulate what parents teach their children (as in, how would they know?).

School ... teachers and classmates, neighbours, parents from friends, maybe even family, who detect abnormal behavior.
.

[Shell B]

Parents aren't immune to that at least not in Holland, depends on what they teach their kids.

That's unfortunate.

So once again, having the right to an ( public ) opinion means that you can say whatever you want ?

Yes, so long as it is isn't breaking some law regarding threats, harassment, etc. The basics of law in my country is that you are free to do what you want and say what you want as long as you do not trample on someone else's rights to do the same.