That's an opinion. In all the science classes I've ever attended, primary, secondary, and college were devoid of any comments about religion.
Religious Brainwashing of Children
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
You assume the bible has barbaric morality because you do not understand it. You are just following what others say...not a very scientific approach for somebody who claims to think scientifically.
I'm not surprised though. As I've said before, atheists aren't much different then fundamentalist Christians or Muslims
Lump me in with the people a little confused on the judge's ruling for the same inconsistencies pointed out above. Maybe the judge felt that the remark, in the context of denying space in the school newspaper, was crossing the line between scientific disagreement and into the realm of an authoritative figure limiting/infringing upon religious freedoms?
Honestly I can see some of Karrie's concern with a teacher ridiculing the beliefs a parent tries to instill in a kid (how up in arms would people be if the teacher was trying to present "intelligent design" as a legitimate theory over evolution?), but at the same time I think its a good thing to challenge your beliefs to get at the underlaying reasons behind them. Do you believe something because it was proven to you and/or it makes sense to you, or just because someone told you so? People are error-prone and fallible, even parents and religious leaders.
Honestly I can see some of Karrie's concern with a teacher ridiculing the beliefs a parent tries to instill in a kid (how up in arms would people be if the teacher was trying to present "intelligent design" as a legitimate theory over evolution?), but at the same time I think its a good thing to challenge your beliefs to get at the underlaying reasons behind them. Do you believe something because it was proven to you and/or it makes sense to you, or just because someone told you so? People are error-prone and fallible, even parents and religious leaders.
The minute a child is born we start brainwashing the little bugger. Everything we think we know about life and reality are based on what our parents, teachers and peer have told us. School is brainwashing, history, science, religion: all brainwashing. Generation upon generation instill their misconceptions of life on the next.
Thousands of years of obsessive focus on physical reality has left us bereft of any real spiritual understanding. That is why religion is so successful: it tries to rationalize the irrational because the rational is all we can handle. Try to take someone beyond the rational to the ethereal and they become frightened and insecure of the unknown.
Strip away all our misconceptions and we would be left with a blank slate. As a friend once stated, she never wanted to strip away the layers of the onion (the various lies that made up her self image) for fear that there would be nothing left of her. That is why people as a whole (hole!) are terrified to look beyond what has been presented to them as fact, to question the status quo, because it would negate their existence.
But it is not true. Our reality and our lives are based on lies that have been told for so long that they have become accepted as true. It is only by questioning the validity of everything that we will begin to understand who we really are. Perhaps then we will stop brainwashing our children.
Thousands of years of obsessive focus on physical reality has left us bereft of any real spiritual understanding. That is why religion is so successful: it tries to rationalize the irrational because the rational is all we can handle. Try to take someone beyond the rational to the ethereal and they become frightened and insecure of the unknown.
Strip away all our misconceptions and we would be left with a blank slate. As a friend once stated, she never wanted to strip away the layers of the onion (the various lies that made up her self image) for fear that there would be nothing left of her. That is why people as a whole (hole!) are terrified to look beyond what has been presented to them as fact, to question the status quo, because it would negate their existence.
But it is not true. Our reality and our lives are based on lies that have been told for so long that they have become accepted as true. It is only by questioning the validity of everything that we will begin to understand who we really are. Perhaps then we will stop brainwashing our children.
No, I am saying that because I have read it, unlike you.
When a person commits a crime, the moral thing to do is not to kill him, his wife, his children and all of his livestock. Yet that is exactly what the bible teaches.
Perhaps ‘barbaric morality’ may be a bit too strong, but I do think that Bible reflects the morality as it was prevalent in the Middle East 2000 years ago. In those days concepts such as equality, compassion, kindness and caring for the fellow creature, kindness to the animals were poorly developed.
In addition some concepts were completely unknown. Thus environmentalism was totally unknown in those days, nor was it necessary. Human population was so small, so technologically backward, that they could pollute to their heart’s content and not make a bit of difference to the environment.
So I do think that Bible (or Koran, or Torah, take your pick) is totally unsuitable as a primer for today’s living, except for a few obvious platitudes such as thou shalt not steal, kill etc.
So I am all for ridiculing Biblical morality. However, Biblical morality was probably pretty good for the times it was written. It was probably a good primer on how to live 2000 years ago.
All of them given the oportunity would gleefully consigne billions of religious opponents to thier graves, your problem is you think there is a buffer of civilization that would prevent such abuse when there bleeding well isn't. The US airforce is an interesting study of the limits of religious intolerance. Many Muslin women and children have been saved for jesus with bombs.
And if there is to be a nuclear war you can bet the ICBMs are launched with the blessings of thier respective religious factions.
Last edited:
No, some beliefs need to be ridiculed. Thinking its ok to bomb a clinic, that needs to be ridiculed. Thinking its ok to beat your wife, that needs to be ridiculed. Incest, terrorism, discimination. There are tons of beliefs that deserve scorn.
However, you don't seem to understand my position. Yes, people should not abuse their positions to mock or terrorize students. But this person is not such an example, this person was subjected to a witch hunt.
You don't get that impression from Faux News, but you do get that impression from reading the court documents.
No it doesn't. As per usual, somebody with a limited understanding of the bible decides to cherry pick passages in some feeble attempt to prove some point. How boring. Do you really believe you have some insight to bring to this discussion?
We read we don't need no stinking understanding. Wait a minute did you just say you had an unlimited understanding of the bible? jesus Cannuck I mean jesus it must be jesus, I won't make any more jokes I promise.
I fully agree that when there's an apparent conflict between science and religious texts, the religious need to be open-minded enough to accept that their texts might be intended to be understood other than in a literal fashion, at the very least.
Each faction of christianity cherry picks which passages suit their purposes. How else do you explain the vast number of different sects? I believe Spade posted that there were around 35 thousand. I lost count and caring after a few hundred.
How else are we going to discuss anything on here if we don't generalize. Every time we made a comment we would have to post as many exceptions as there are to the English language.
Exactly. If you are going to use the bible in an attempt to prove some point, you have to use the whole bible. When one discards or ignores the parts that don't fit into ones agenda then the whole argument falls apart.
And it's not just Christian denominations and it's not all Christian denominations that cherry pick. As is evidence on this forum, those that wish to attack the bible and Christians practically patented the "cherry pick" move.
There is nothing wrong with generalizing as long as people are aware that they are generalizing. When it comes to religion, there isn't anybody on this site, including myself, that is an expert on any of the major religious texts. There are some people that show a willingness to understand though. If one isn't willing to take the time to try and understand it, one should limit ones comments lest one look really silly.
The problems with generalizing, when discussing religion (or specifically Christianity) is that there is such a diversity that generalizations look pretty dumb when you step back and look and then. Some Christian denominations believe it's heresy to pray with Christians of another denominations and other Christians openly question whether Jesus was, in fact, THE son of god. The range of Christian believe is such that there really are no generalizations that accurately apply.
'fully agree' implies that I said that anywhere in the post you were replying to. And I didn't.
None, but that isn't the point. The point is that Christian scripture contains multiple edicts that nobody pays any attention to. The Bible, for instance, clearly directs that a "stubborn and rebellious son" should be stoned to death, that adulterers (and it often seems only women can commit that particular crime) should be stoned to death, that people who plant two different crops in the same field or wear clothes made of two different fibres or work on the sabbath should be killed, and so on. And there's no cherry picking there, those statements are made clearly and unequivocally. There are something over 600 prescriptions like that for correct behaviour given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and many of them would currently land you in jail. Christianity does not use the Bible as its source of ethics and morality, it picks and chooses what's consistent with contemporary social conditions and ignores the rest. And that means religion is *not* the real source of human ethics and morality, they come from somewhere else and religious justifications for them are just post hoc rationalizations. You don't need religion to live an ethical and moral life.
But all that's a long way off topic from the OP. I'd agree that teacher was pretty much over the top for saying stuff like he did in a class in European history, but at the same time, you can't talk intelligently about European history without talking about Christianity in its various Catholic and Protestant forms. I think he was editorializing in a quite unjustifiable way, but it seems very odd that the one thing the judge fastened on as violating the First Amendment was the one thing that's demonstrably true in what he said.
I do believe that forums are about expressing opinions not necessarily facts. Like you say, nobody has all the facts. It does not mean they cannot have an opinion about whatever they please. I personally like to read other people's opinions, even if I disagree strongly with their position. Religion is a very touchy subject with a lot of people but unless we bring our opinions out in the open, how are we going to know if they have any merit or validity.
I have spent the better part of my life studying religion, philosophy and psychology and I have some pretty strong opinions about religion as you know. But I don't intentionally try to antagonize people. I don't like to debate the subject because that entails someone is wrong. I just express my opinion. That is how I feel. If someone doesn't agree, that is fine. It does not change how I feel or believe. I don't have an agenda other than communicating ideas.
I have spent the better part of my life studying religion, philosophy and psychology and I have some pretty strong opinions about religion as you know. But I don't intentionally try to antagonize people. I don't like to debate the subject because that entails someone is wrong. I just express my opinion. That is how I feel. If someone doesn't agree, that is fine. It does not change how I feel or believe. I don't have an agenda other than communicating ideas.
