Hard News: Testify!
107 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Jeremy, I agree with you. The worst kind of secular education system would be one that ignored religions entirely, as if they did not exist. We have to accept (some Atheist "representatives" especially) that religions have played a crucil role in history and continue to do so. We also have to recognise that religion is hugely significant to people's cultures: the two cannot be separated easily. Nor should they be: so-called humanists who stomp about trying to convert believers and calling them names for believing are just as bad as the evangelicals. They do not realise that humanity and its religions have a long and intimate association.
-
Nais,
3 local schools in our area are having youth leaders from a local middle-of-the road church come in once a week after school to do a session with kids whose parents have given permission for their Jacks and Janes to attend. I don't have an issue with this as in my mind it's no different from Art, French or Kapa Haka classes - parental choice and all that.
Chatting with parents there seems to be a desire to return to some good ol' fashioned moral teachings though. Many are saying they think 'society' is losing the plot re behaviour - please, thank you, respecting older people, being grateful for what you have etc. One I was talking to on Monday is fearful we will end up like the UK - a mess of PC edicts from on high re crosses on buns, carols at Christmas, nursery rhymes referring to black sheep etc.
BTW, did any of you have pancakes last night seeing as it was Shrove Tuesday??!!
-
merc,
"What would you like us to do Messish?"
Brian; Fuck off! -
merc,
Oh God, er that is Messiah, must not joke about The Big Guy.
-
re: antidisestablishmentarianism
It was just too good to miss!
-
On the subject of sport:
- After having dropped just one game to England in the triangular series, the ABC commentators were blathering on between overs about how Michael Hussey was some sort of superhuman cricketing character (they stopped after he was out for 17).
- Four defeats later, Gilchrist is saying that they shouldn't really have had to tour New Zealand.
- I predict that after Oz loses to Scotland they will complain that they shouldn't have to play "minnows".
-
Can I be the first to register my strong objection to mixing religion with cricket like this? It's blasphemous.
-
Imagine explaining the news to a kid who'd never been taught about religion.
Child: Dad - why did that guy just cut that other guys head off?
Parent: (Draws deep breath) Well . . . -
Re the teaching of media literacy, it is an important part of the secondary English syllabus. Many people would object if there were any more of it.
-
It always struck me as blatantly unfair that only religionists are entitled to protection as well as instruction so as to further their superstitions.
-
Chatting with parents there seems to be a desire to return to some good ol' fashioned moral teachings though.
Trying to put aside my huge problems with the concept that religion has some kind of exclusive license on 'moral', if that's what they want, why don't THEY do it? Y'know, at home, in church, etc. I wouldn't trust anyone else to be in charge of my children's moral education. But then, I wouldn't have put MacMillan in the team, so what do I know?
That said, I have no problem with voluntary, opt-IN religious groups that operate for-real outside school time.
-
Juha - Thanks for linking to that letter. Words fail when trying to come up with a dignified response.
-
Juha - is there any basis for the assertion that only religionists are entitled to protection in the US?
Surely the letter to which you link, which is complaining about the protections atheists have (absence of religion in schools, absence of deportations of atheists, etc.) is pretty good evidence that there are protections, lest there be nothing for crazy people to complain about.
Now I'm not saying that atheists have an easy time of it in the US, but there are lots of protections for them in the US that aren't enjoyed elsewhere.
-
I like the way the author states "you can believe in God any way you want", but her list of examples includes christian denominations only.
Utopia required its inhabitants to believe in a god (any god), but somehow I doubt the letter's author would be particularly enamoured with some of Thomas More's other dictates.
-
You mean like the lupins?
Wait, that was Dennis Moore.
Man, anyone would think I had an article deadline looming...
-
Juha - that would be the Peninsula Clarion, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska:
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/letters/Registration required to read the letters - but there has been heated response to judge from that page, eg.: "Wow, it’s rare to see such ignorance, bigotry and hatred without having the TV tuned to the Fox News channel.”
-
Juha wrote:
It always struck me as blatantly unfair that only religionists are entitled to protection as well as instruction so as to further their superstitions.Um, really? I have my moments when I wish Richard Dwakins and Brain Tamiki would STFU and stop being so hysterical and self-righteous (I also wish they'd be a little less self-serving in their grossly simplistic reading of history and culture), but I'm just cranky that way. :(
-
The worst kind of secular education system would be one that ignored religions entirely, as if they did not exist.
Which is exactly what is not being asked for, by anyone other than certain religious denominations who would rather be in more control over what *is* taught about their particular faith.
You have done the same as equating atheists with secularists.
Not teaching people about different belief/philosophical systems and their historical and current context would be a travesty. Pretending, however, that a morning prayer, a friendly chat with your local bit of cloth and hymns is the same thing is simple dissemination.
-
Graeme: you mean the First Amendment? That prohibits the US Congress from establishing a religion, or favouring an existing one. It doesn't specifically offer protection for atheists. Atheists have all the rights and obligations of other US citizens, but that's where it ends. There is freedom of religion but not freedom from religion, unfortunately.
Of course, we have no recourse to the 1st in NZ...
You would need to ask someone who understands the situation in the US better than I do, and who knows what effect the Religious Liberty Protection Act, which was introduced after the previous Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck out as unconstitutional, has had.
Tom: thanks, good find. Some good stuff there too and... *cough* Bugmenot works *cough*.
Guess by the way who said this?
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
-
I am always a little surprised when people tell me that they think morality is declining, or that things are more unstable/dangerous than they once were. I think perhaps its either because there is a strong myth that things were safer/more moral in some past time, or perhaps people are predisposed to think things were better “back in the day”.
I don’t get this really. Every time I hear these fears expressed I think about how much better my life is now that it once would have been, due to technology, social change and all sorts of things. Where is the crime in the streets? Where are the block long dole queues? Where are the boarded up shops, the abandoned commercial/industrial sites? Where is the public nudity, the drug addicts lying on the streets? How exactly is public morality in danger?
Sure, there is war in Iraq, and Islamic terrorism is not a myth. But this type of thing is nothing new, not in the slightest but things are not nearly as bad as they seem. Where we have Iraq and the US/UK today, we had Afghanistan and the Soviets in the 1980s. Where we have Islamic terrorists we once had the militant left wing/Palestinian nationalists. Before that we had Vietnam, and all the colonial liberation movements. We had apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia. We had NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact and the prospect of nuclear holocaust. We had Mao killing millions of his countrymen in stupid social/economic experiments (and any number of other dictators). What do we have today? Things may still be stupidly violent in many parts of the world, but so far as over all tension goes things are certainly better than they once were.
There is no evitable decline, things are getting better, and people are freer and safer than they ever were. I just wish we’d all lighten up and recognise this. What is so bad about living in a materialistic culture, where people don’t starve and human rights are so strongly protected?
-
Nais,
Trying to put aside my huge problems with the concept that religion has some kind of exclusive license on 'moral', if that's what they want, why don't THEY do it?
Couldn't agree more Emma, but then who am I to know the workings of the inside of people's heads.
-
Juha quoted:
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."Oh God, no.* Not him. Yes readers, it was George Bush Snr.
This quote is all over the atheist net, but I can't find the source.
*I mean "Oh heck, no."
-
Here we are, from the General Laws of Massachusetts (no, not the Islamic Republic of Iran):
"PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 36. Blasphemy
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior. "
-
Sounds like an archaic law if ever I heard of one - let me guess, it either predates the 20th century, or it was passed in the 1920s?
-
Ben, maybe, it it is obviously under constant review. For example:
Chapter 272, Section 103. Repealed, 1993, 279.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.