Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 136137138139140 174>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Any Colour You Like View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 19:39
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Any Colour You Like Any Colour You Like wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

It's clear, they are forced to allow this clubs, if not they are volating the student's rights.
 
Now being that New Zeland has no codified Constitution as we know, but the Section 15 of the New Zeland Bill of Rights says:
 
___________________________________________

15 Manifestation of religion and belief

Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

____________________________________________
 
It's clear, the limits are even less than in USA.
 


Yes Ivan, but this does not include the formation of exclusive groups in Public state run schools.

If a student in NZ wants to practice religion at school, they go to a Religious school. Simple.

 
Unless there is a limiting law (Something hard because that law will have less power than the Bill of Rights which is a constitutional document), the Bill of Rights makes no difference between Public and private places.
 
You can't limit where the law doesn't limit is a universal principle.
 
Iván


I'm not sure of any limiting laws, I never got that far in my study of the NZBoR, but... I do know that any Public State funded school in NZ must provide all students with equality of opportunity. Thus, Religious/Non-religious groups are allowed, provided they are not exclusive, and do not discriminate.

Whether this is attainable in our society eludes me, I don't think it is at the status quo.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 19:56
Dean you said:
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church. 
 
I proved you are wrong, they have to provide room and allow the religion clubs.
 
Now, if the teacher organized it in USA it would be wrong and but it's in New Zealand and if the cklub is outside class hours, she's allowed to even teach religion, as you will see forward.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I don't see how this applies in this case, but nevermind - I'm sure you do.
 
 
ps: does this mean that shopping malls, gas stations and public libraries have to provide exclusive clubs for people's worship, observance, practice, or teaching? No, of course it doesn't, and neither do schools, colleges, universities or kindergartens. Nothing about this infringes anyone's rights to religion or belief.
 
Again, I don't have all the New Zealand laws, but the Constitution allows to teach and worship in public places.
 
Please don't try to reduce this to an absurd with the gas station example,
 
EDIT: I found the information about religion in New Zealand schools:
 
Quote

The Education Act 1964 (Section 78) allows Boards to permit religious instruction or observance during periods when a school is closed for instruction.

Allowing religious instruction or observance to take place outside normal teaching hours when the school is closed for instruction is considered to be consistent with providing a secular education.

A Board may choose to close a part of the school (e.g. the classroom where religious instruction is taking place) and keep another part open for teaching. Int his case, the time can be accounted for on a pro-rata basis.

It is understood that a school is closed at lunch time.
 
 
Oops...You can even teach religion in New Zealand schools if it's taught outside the class hours.
 
 
Quote

The Education Act 1964 requires that all teaching in primary schools must be secular (Section 77). The next two sections (78, 79) outline the conditions under which religious observance can be undertaken. Religious observance can only take place when the school is closed and not at any time that the Ministry of Education is responsible for.

Usually, having prayers at assembly will be lawful as long as your school
 
• allows students to opt out
 
• observes the relevant time constraints and

• makes sure prayers take place during a period when that part of the school is closed for instruction. (See Question 17)
 
 
Hey...Even pray.
 
This means that the teacher had all the rights...Interesting.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 01 2010 at 20:26
            
Back to Top
Any Colour You Like View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 01 2010 at 20:17
NZ Bill of Rights, Part 2, Section 13:

13. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

In my opinion, State funded schools should not be able to sanction Prayer in schools, despite the opt-out option because students under 16 should not have seek parental permission for exemption from religious observences. "Interference" includes the imposition of practices beyond what any person sees as fair and appropriate in a public situation. Should any student have to sit through what the 'teacher' sees as appropriate religious discourse?

Personal religion should be PERSONAL in the State sector, and rather than being opt-out, it should be opt-in.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 03:29
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

 
I cannot believe some of you are so anti religion at schools. What are you scared of? Your kids forming their own opinions? Freewill?


Who's against religion at schools? I am against mandatory religion, and I'm certainly against schools endorsing a particular religion and ostracising people who happen to be part of a minority group, be it another religion or atheism.

"Kids forming their own opinions" ... in order to have that you need a school system that is neutral in regard to religion.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 03:39
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean you said:
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church. 
 
I proved you are wrong, they have to provide room and allow the religion clubs.
 
Now, if the teacher organized it in USA it would be wrong and but it's in New Zealand and if the cklub is outside class hours, she's allowed to even teach religion, as you will see forward.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I don't see how this applies in this case, but nevermind - I'm sure you do.
 
 
ps: does this mean that shopping malls, gas stations and public libraries have to provide exclusive clubs for people's worship, observance, practice, or teaching? No, of course it doesn't, and neither do schools, colleges, universities or kindergartens. Nothing about this infringes anyone's rights to religion or belief.
 
Again, I don't have all the New Zealand laws, but the Constitution allows to teach and worship in public places.
 
Please don't try to reduce this to an absurd with the gas station example,
 
EDIT: I found the information about religion in New Zealand schools:
 
Quote

The Education Act 1964 (Section 78) allows Boards to permit religious instruction or observance during periods when a school is closed for instruction.

Allowing religious instruction or observance to take place outside normal teaching hours when the school is closed for instruction is considered to be consistent with providing a secular education.

A Board may choose to close a part of the school (e.g. the classroom where religious instruction is taking place) and keep another part open for teaching. Int his case, the time can be accounted for on a pro-rata basis.

It is understood that a school is closed at lunch time.
 
 
Oops...You can even teach religion in New Zealand schools if it's taught outside the class hours.
 
 
Quote

The Education Act 1964 requires that all teaching in primary schools must be secular (Section 77). The next two sections (78, 79) outline the conditions under which religious observance can be undertaken. Religious observance can only take place when the school is closed and not at any time that the Ministry of Education is responsible for.

Usually, having prayers at assembly will be lawful as long as your school
 
• allows students to opt out
 
• observes the relevant time constraints and

• makes sure prayers take place during a period when that part of the school is closed for instruction. (See Question 17)

 
 
Hey...Even pray.
 
This means that the teacher had all the rights...Interesting.
 
Iván



After all this irrelevant legal information - do you actually think it's a good thing? In other words: Do you have an opinion of your own, or will you have to quote legislation for that as well?Wink
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 04:38
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean you said:
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church. 
 
I proved you are wrong, they have to provide room and allow the religion clubs.
No you have not proved me wrong. they do not have to provide room if they do not want to - the school can allow religious clubs - it is not forced to provide them - the "right" is with the school, not the teacher.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
Now, if the teacher organized it in USA it would be wrong and but it's in New Zealand and if the cklub is outside class hours, she's allowed to even teach religion, as you will see forward.
What you will prove in the following extracts of the Education Act is that the law hands the Yes/No permission over to the School Boards not to the State or the teacher. The teacher can organise and teach religion if the school allows her to.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I don't see how this applies in this case, but nevermind - I'm sure you do.
 
 
ps: does this mean that shopping malls, gas stations and public libraries have to provide exclusive clubs for people's worship, observance, practice, or teaching? No, of course it doesn't, and neither do schools, colleges, universities or kindergartens. Nothing about this infringes anyone's rights to religion or belief.
 
Again, I don't have all the New Zealand laws, but the Constitution allows to teach and worship in public places.
 
Please don't try to reduce this to an absurd with the gas station example,
It was reduced to the absurd long before I mentioned gas stations by you assuming that laws allowing things to take place means that they must take place and that's peoples right to religion and belief is in any way infringed by someone saying you cannot have an exclusive club on school property outside school hours using school resources if the school doesn't want you to.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
EDIT: I found the information about religion in New Zealand schools:
 
Quote

The Education Act 1964 (Section 78) allows Boards to permit religious instruction or observance during periods when a school is closed for instruction.

Allowing religious instruction or observance to take place outside normal teaching hours when the school is closed for instruction is considered to be consistent with providing a secular education.

A Board may choose to close a part of the school (e.g. the classroom where religious instruction is taking place) and keep another part open for teaching. Int his case, the time can be accounted for on a pro-rata basis.

It is understood that a school is closed at lunch time.
 
 
Oops...You can even teach religion in New Zealand schools if it's taught outside the class hours.
Oops!  You cannot if the school doesn't not provde it and they don't have to provide it if they don't want to. The teacher is permitted to run a club if the school allows her to - that's what the law says.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
 
Quote

The Education Act 1964 requires that all teaching in primary schools must be secular (Section 77). The next two sections (78, 79) outline the conditions under which religious observance can be undertaken. Religious observance can only take place when the school is closed and not at any time that the Ministry of Education is responsible for.

Usually, having prayers at assembly will be lawful as long as your school
 
• allows students to opt out
 
• observes the relevant time constraints and

• makes sure prayers take place during a period when that part of the school is closed for instruction. (See Question 17)
 
 
Hey...Even pray.
This is completely irrelevant. The NZ school system was originally based upon the English school system where each morning began with morning prayers, called an Assembly (blue bold in your quoted text). When the schools went secular (the green bold in your quoted text) this meant that morning assembly went secular too - this section of the Education Act allows schools to keep prayers as part of the morning assembly if they want to.
 
It is not mandatory - no one can force the school to have prayers during morning assembly.
 
Even if this teacher wanted to have morning prayers during assembly (which she didn't), this section of the Education Act would not give her the right to force the school to do it. However, if the school governers and head teacher wanted to have morning prayers during assembly then this section of the Education Act says that they can without breaking the secular requirement of schools (green bold in your quoted text).
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
This means that the teacher had all the rights...Interesting.
 
Iván
It meant the teacher had some rights, but the school also had the right to say no since they were not obliged to allow the club if they didn't want to.
 


Edited by Dean - October 02 2010 at 06:23
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 06:02
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


After all this irrelevant legal information - do you actually think it's a good thing? In other words: Do you have an opinion of your own, or will you have to quote legislation for that as well?Wink
Before Iván answers in his normal manner, in my opinion the teacher was right to want to organise a faith club and Textbook was equally right in not wanting the club in a secular school if other faith clubs couldn't be provided and the final decision was with the school management which was their right.
 
Looking on the interweb at school christian clubs their mandate is to spread the word to non-christians to proselytise and to gain converts - if this particular club was solely for the purpose of group prayer and bible-study of those already converted then I don't have a problem with it - if they start preying on vulnerable non-christian adolescents then I do have a problem with it. There is a cult organisation in NZ called Christians On Campus who do exactly that - I am not saying this club is anything like that, in fact (figure of speech, not a statement) it is highly likely that it is not since it is being organised by a teacher - however, it is unwise to assume that all school religious clubs are necessarily a good thing - some are most certainly not a good thing. IMO.


Edited by Dean - October 02 2010 at 06:05
What?
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 06:08
Of course it's a difficult question - as you mentioned, there are many types of clubs, they have different agendas, they're either private or state run and they're at institutions that are either private or state run.

My "in a nutshell" view is that education should be secular ... religious indoctrination has nothing to do with education.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 10:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean you said:
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church. 
 
I proved you are wrong, they have to provide room and allow the religion clubs.
No you have not proved me wrong. they do not have to provide room if they do not want to - the school can allow religious clubs - it is not forced to provide them - the "right" is with the school, not the teacher.
 
Please, don't try to mix things, we were talking about USA and about New Zealand
 
I proved you that UNITED STATES is mandatory for the school to accept religion or Bible clubs if they have another kind of clubs, and the law says:
 
Quote Public secondary schools must allow Bible clubs the same privileges as any other school club. Meetings may include prayer, Bible reading, and worship. Bible clubs must also be allowed to promote their activities through school newspapers, public address systems, and bulletin boards on the same basis as other clubs. The school must provide a room and resources for the Bible clubs. The only difference the Court allowed between Bible clubs and other clubs is that the faculty sponsor may not control the Bible club. The faculty sponsor must merely ensure that the club follows school policies, since any official control by the faculty members of religious activities of the club could be an establishment of religion. The club must be student-led, and students may occasionally invite outside community religious leaders to speak.
 
 
It's clear,if there are other clubs, it's mandatory for a USA school to accapet a Bible club and to provide them a room for their activities.
 
So in USA it's mandatory and unlawful to deny this clubs:
 
Quote

Sec. 4071.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives federalfinancial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct ameeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political,philosophical, or other content of speech at such meetings.(b) A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever

So, if there's any other club, the school MUST accept a Bible club, no matte if they don't accept non Christians.
 
That's all what I said about USA and I orived it's right,
 
_________________________________________________________
 
Now, about New Zealand, I never said it was mandatory, I said the teacher was not wrong asking to start a Christian club, even if there was not any of other religions, and I believe I proved that largely,
 
I said about New Zealand:
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
Now, if the teacher organized it in USA it would be wrong and but it's in New Zealand and if the club is outside class hours, she's allowed to even teach religion, as you will see forward.
 
So I stated that the participation of the teacher:
  1. In USA would be illegal
  2. In New Zealand she/he will be allowed to start one

Never said it was mandatory in that country, so the rest of your post was unnecessary.

_______________________________________________________________________________
 
Now to Mike, you said that thelegal information is irrelevant, but you first said:
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ I would say they should either have religious groups for every religion or none at all. Of course I like the latter much better, plus the other choice is next to impossible to implement. What's clearly inappropriate to me is to have the staff organize a group for one religion and then leave it to the kids to organize their own groups.
 
Eith the laws of New Zealand (The country where this hapened), I proved that it's not only approprite, but also the CONSTITUTIONAL right of the teacher to start a religious group, and even participate, pray and worship with the students.
 
The School can deny it, probably, and I say probably because I would need to see if some student sued the school for denying the formation of a religious vclub and what happened.
 
So the legal information is not irrelevant Mike, it tells you what you can and can't do
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 15:53
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean you said:
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

A school has no obligation to provide anything to the students for after school use. If you want to worship after school - go home or go to a church. 
 
I proved you are wrong, they have to provide room and allow the religion clubs.
No you have not proved me wrong. they do not have to provide room if they do not want to - the school can allow religious clubs - it is not forced to provide them - the "right" is with the school, not the teacher.
 
Please, don't try to mix things, we were talking about USA and about New Zealand
I have said nothing about the USA - this incident is not in the USA so I have not mentioned USA laws and practices at all, ever - I have only been talking about this incident and New Zealand - you ran off on some irrlevant tangent about USA, which I have ignored.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
I proved you that UNITED STATES is mandatory for the school to accept religion or Bible clubs if they have another kind of clubs, and the law says:
 
::snip::
 
So, if there's any other club, the school MUST accept a Bible club, no matte if they don't accept non Christians.
 
That's all what I said about USA and I orived it's right,
 
I could not give a flying fig what the USA does or whether you managed to prove right something that no one in this thread has argued against.
 
This incident was in New Zealand and that is the only country the rest of us have been talking about. 
 
Everything you said regarding USA law and constitutional rights is completely and utterly irrelevant in this incident, which is the only incident we in this thread have been talking about.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
_________________________________________________________
 
Now, about New Zealand, I never said it was mandatory, I said the teacher was not wrong asking to start a Christian club, even if there was not any of other religions, and I believe I proved that largely,
 
I said about New Zealand:
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
Now, if the teacher organized it in USA it would be wrong and but it's in New Zealand and if the club is outside class hours, she's allowed to even teach religion, as you will see forward.
 
So I stated that the participation of the teacher:
  1. In USA would be illegal
  2. In New Zealand she/he will be allowed to start one

Never said it was mandatory in that country, so the rest of your post was unnecessary.

And no one else ever said it was mandatory or and no one has accused you of saying it was mandatory. No one has denied that she is allowed to start a christian club in a school. Quite why you've gone off on this tangent is beyond me.
 
You said:
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

they have to provide room and allow the religion clubs
I said:
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

they do not have to provide room if they do not want to
The New Zealand Education Act says:
Quote The Education Act 1964 (Section 78) allows Boards to permit religious instruction or observance during periods when a school is closed for instruction
The School Board can permit religious instruction or observance on its premises because the State allows it to. Without this allowance from the State the School Board is not allowed to permit religious instruction or observance on its premises. It does not say that Boards must permit religious instruction or observance. Without permission from the School Board the club cannot run. The School Board has to give permission for the club to run - they can say no. They do not have to allow religious clubs and they do not have to provide rooms.
What?
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 16:38

A kid is permitted/not permitted by it's school to attend a relgious club/group----Hooray!

A kid is permitted by an ISP to visit hardcore porn sites 24/7 without supervision-----Hurrahh!
 
Maybe we should put things in perspectiveDead
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 16:57
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

A kid is permitted/not permitted by it's school to attend a relgious club/group----Hooray!

A kid is permitted by an ISP to visit hardcore porn sites 24/7 without supervision-----Hurrahh!
 
Maybe we should put things in perspectiveDead
A school is not a church. A parent has the right to send their little angels to a faith school.
 
Parents should control and supervise what a kid can and cannot do on the internet. AOL has parental controls, MSN has parental controls - it is up to the parent whether they use them or not, not the ISP.
 
Perspective is a wonderful thing when not looked at through a glass, darkly.
What?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 17:48
Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

A kid is permitted/not permitted by it's school to attend a relgious club/group----Hooray! I don't thionk he's not permitted. The act is just not sponsored. He can do it freely whenever he's out of school.

A kid is permitted by an ISP to visit hardcore porn sites 24/7 without supervision-----Hurrahh! No relation at all. The school has no saying on this. Blame it on the parents. 
 
Maybe we should put things in perspectiveDead
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 17:55
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

A kid is permitted/not permitted by it's school to attend a relgious club/group----Hooray!

A kid is permitted by an ISP to visit hardcore porn sites 24/7 without supervision-----Hurrahh!
 
Maybe we should put things in perspectiveDead
A school is not a church. A parent has the right to send their little angels to a faith school.
 
Parents should control and supervise what a kid can and cannot do on the internet. AOL has parental controls, MSN has parental controls - it is up to the parent whether they use them or not, not the ISP.
 
Perspective is a wonderful thing when not looked at through a glass, darkly.
Agree to disagreeThumbs Down
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 18:19
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Chris S Chris S wrote:

 
I cannot believe some of you are so anti religion at schools. What are you scared of? Your kids forming their own opinions? Freewill?


Who's against religion at schools? I am against mandatory religion, and I'm certainly against schools endorsing a particular religion and ostracising people who happen to be part of a minority group, be it another religion or atheism.

"Kids forming their own opinions" ... in order to have that you need a school system that is neutral in regard to religion.
Religious Education falls into two groups Religious Instruction, where a specific religion is taught and Religious Studies, where religion in general and comparative religions are taught.
 
I fully support the secular study and teaching of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions [where] it describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasising systematic, historically-based, and cross-cultural perspectives. That allows students to form their own opinions.
 
On that level, unlike Mike, I support this as a mandatory part of the curriculum with no opt-outs based upon any particular faith or lack of one - when every student in every school gets a better understanding of each religion without the bias and prejudice of any one religion over an other, when every student in every school is taught the idea of religious tolerance and mutual respect and when students are free to chose and form their own opinions based upon the unbiased and neutral teaching then I'll say that freewill has not been compromised by the teaching of religion in schools.
 
However, I do not support it when bias and prejudice negate the neutrality of that teaching or when it spills out of the confines of pure religious study into science, biology, sex-education, history, geography, morality and ethics.
 
As to practising religion in schools: Voluntary prayers and worship as dictated by the doctrines of any particular religion for practicing members of those religions within the school environment during lunch breaks and after school - yes, fully support. Mandatory worship - no, never. Suppression of the religious beliefs of the student - no, never. Wearing of religious symbols - not an issue. Proselytising, preaching and converting (active, proactive or indirect) - no, never. Exclusion, ostracising  and victimising based on religion - no, never. Promotion of sectarian and/or religious intolerance - no, never.
 
So, what am I scared of? Children are our most precious commodity, they are our future - they are also vulnerable and impressionable - they are empty vessels eager to learn and willing to accept whatever appointed authority figures tell them (regardless of what they tell you to the contrary). We can teach them tolerance, respect and understanding, or we can teach them intolerance, sectarianism and bigotry. When I look around the world at all the conflict and bitterness within it I don't get a warm reassuring feeling that non-secular education has done a particularly outstanding job at instilling tolerance, respect and understanding. That's what scares me.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 18:46
Well Dean, we could keep talking about if we were talking about USA or New Zealand and reach nowhere, so I'll make it short.
 
1.- If in USA: the schools HAVE TO authorize the Bible or Relgion club and preovide them with a place and no less facilities than any other club has.
 
2.- In New Zealand a proffessor can take part of he group and even lead it, but aparently (Will say apparently until I read a court ruling), the school can say no.
 
So the proiffessor wasn't acting wrong or illegaly, neither the school (apparently) when denied the permission.
 
That's all.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 19:36
Well Iván, I'm not talking about USA and never was.
 
And no one ever said the teacher acted illegally or was doing anything wrong, nor did anyone say the school was.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 19:56
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
And no one ever said the teacher acted illegally or was doing anything wrong, nor did anyone say the school was.
 
Yes, somebody said it was inappropriate:
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ I would say they should either have religious groups for every religion or none at all. Of course I like the latter much better, plus the other choice is next to impossible to implement. What's clearly inappropriate to me is to have the staff organize a group for one religion and then leave it to the kids to organize their own groups.
 
That was my cue to enter. LOL
 
It's not only appropriate but also the teacher's legitimate constitutional right.
 
Just in case...I know you didn't say it because usually you reply I didn't said that, forgetting that there's more people that participates in this threads.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 02 2010 at 20:26
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 20:27
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
And no one ever said the teacher acted illegally or was doing anything wrong, nor did anyone say the school was.
 
Yes, somebody said it was inappropriate:
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ I would say they should either have religious groups for every religion or none at all. Of course I like the latter much better, plus the other choice is next to impossible to implement. What's clearly inappropriate to me is to have the staff organize a group for one religion and then leave it to the kids to organize their own groups.
 
That was my cue to enter. LOL
 
It's not onlńy appropriate but also the teacher's legitimate constitutional right.
 
Just in case...I know you didn't say it because usually you reply I didn't said that, forgetting that there's more people that participates in this threads.
 
Iván
Inappropriate is neither illegal nor wrong. You can follow the letter of the law and still act inappropriately; you can do something that is right and it will still be inappropriate. Mike said it was inappropriate, he did not say it was illegal or wrong.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 02 2010 at 20:54
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Inappropriate is neither illegal nor wrong. You can follow the letter of the law and still act inappropriately; you can do something that is right and it will still be inappropriate. Mike said it was inappropriate, he did not say it was illegal or wrong.
 
Dean: This is the SYNONYM dictionary
 
Quote inappropriate

Sense 1:
inappropriate (vs. appropriate)
unbefitting improper, wrong
 
 
Inappropriate is a synonym for wrong, so he said it was wrong.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 136137138139140 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.285 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.