Fallout Studios Forums

The Basilisk, on 22 Nov 2008, 15:35, said:

Same here, but not Europe. I mean, where we are liberal on so many things (of which religion IS NOT one, the law says it is... but the people say no; so is being gay/lesbian), and Europe is liberal on what we aren't, it is also liberal on many things we enjoy, such as violence. The problem with Europe is that it is (no offense) paranoid about its own safety (although I don't blame them TOO MUCH since about 75% of the wars I know of-including the Great Wars such as WWI, WWII, and so on- have either taken place there or they've been VERY heavily involved), so a lot of rights are forfeited (such as some freedoms of privacy).

Zero, on 23 Nov 2008, 11:47, said:

No offence, but I really could not help but laugh my arse off at this. Let me say two words: PATRIOT act.

Topic Closed: Pending discussion between leaders



Unlocked after discussions completed.
Edited by Dauth, 24 November 2008 - 14:11.

Dauth, on 24 Nov 2008, 15:08, said:

What does that mean?

Zero, on 25 Nov 2008, 23:35, said:

I locked this thread as I felt a rule was breached, I have discussed this with another moderator (in the place of Wizard who was unavailable) and we reached a conclusion. I acted on this conclusion and thus was able to reopen the thread. I will not go into detail about what the conclusion was and urge people to return to the topic. To be clear this is a moderator instruction to return to topic.

Okay, to return to my previous conversation, I will say something briefly and leave it alone, I understand what you mean about the Patriot Act. Although, to clarify, it is a HELL of a lot harder to do that in America than in most European countries because ours was FOUNDED on liberty and freedom, so... well, just look at the criticism he got, even from politicians. Although, I do REALLY envy Europe, in America we are VERY bias towards religion (which I HATE, albeit it does seem to be a side effect of ALL religions, some fanatics claiming they are the ONLY way) and we, as a country, are afraid of sex (and its lightened up the past few years, although its starting to degress again).

Another reason for seperating them are to keep them out of school. Imagine teaching creationism. You might say "sure, there's no proof for evolution," but there is SOME proof for evolution and almost NO proof for creationism (at least that will prove superior to evolution). Schools are places of not opinion, but facts, a problem I have with history, it's bias. And as such places, of education, factuality, they MUST ONLY teach what can be proven, not the opinion of a book. Also, when a school adopts a religion, think of the children who'll get hurt (such as the Muslim kids who will be shunned and made fun of because of their differing beliefs-as most Americans are Christian, and that church and the Islamics don't get along unfortunatrely). So, again, I say.... NAY!!!!!!

While I believe church and state need to be separated, there is a slight exception in education. It is supposed to be non-biased, meaning it needs to at least show the other major theories out there (of which creationism is the big other one).

You can teach the existence of religions in a RE lesson, but please keep your Theology off my Biology. There is no reason recognised by any decent independent scientific body that a religious theory can compete. I wouldn't discredit religion in school, but I see no reason to give it and credit in a scientific manner. Creationism doesn't have any reasoned backing it is based on a book that has been mistranslated twice (minimum) and a Doctrine that would see homosexuals butchered in the street as unholy.
Edited by Dauth, 01 December 2008 - 21:12.

You know, if we didn't have public schools we wouldn't have to worry about whether only representing evolution is unfair or not. Just a thought.

No, because we'd have far worse problems to overshadow that, then. Like a complete lack of education for the majority of the population, and a regression to the 19th century level.

So that's not really an option. Instead of wondering about the school system itself wondering about the content of classes is more effective and productive.

CodeCat, on 2 Dec 2008, 2:04, said:

Even if that was true, it still does not justify the means to pay for it(taxes).

I already know where this is going, so in order to prevent us from getting off topic, could we just not discuss this any further, or create a new thread.

I agree it would be worst, and not just that, think about the Religious Schools teaching creationism as part of a SCIENCE class. Something with no proof, considered SCIENCE... HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE!?! I'll admit, I HATE biology, but at least keep it a SCIENCE not a myth. If all schools were private, then a whole load would teach creationism, I think teaching it should just be banned outside of a religion class anyway, I mean, were else can it POSSIBLY apply? No, should not be taught in ANY Science class, and if you disagree I have a nice big fossil I can shove up your- Still, in a class of philosophy/religion, I'm willing to concede.

Zero, on 2 Dec 2008, 1:45, said:

So? It's not like you have to go to them, unlike public school.

However, those schools that are free/cheap would most likely be Christian/Catholic (since they run the most free/cheap ones I can think of;hell I went to a private Catholic School), and since I can't afford any secular school... guess where I'd have to go? Seriously, if any biology teacher ever brings up Creationism over Evolution in a class, I'll go to the board and work to get him fired.... SCIENCE NEEDS PROOF! Without it it's not science, its... SPECULATION at best. At least my school (San Miguel) taught evolution over creationism, hell that was never mentioned, but I doubt that that's something that most religious schools would do....

I'm sure with the extra money you'd have from not having to pay taxes for those schools would be more than enough.

I was at a Catholic school and our biology teacher taught us about evolution while our RE teacher taught us about creationism. People decided to follow their own beliefs with most choosing to follow evolution. Then again evolution isn't a completely confirmed theory, it's just the one with the most proof justifying it sort of like the Big Bang theory versus steady-state theory (Genesis is far out of the question).

However, if no school should be FORCED to teach creationism, something many people have wanted to do (I think Sarah Palin was one). Again, schools are places of learning, and more importantly, places of SCIENCE, unbias SCIENCE, therefore you MUST have PROOF to your assesment, of which there is NO unbias proof of for Creationism.

School does not teach creationism in science class unless the syllabus is flawed.

Studies of religion is for that stuff.
Edited by Alias, 02 December 2008 - 20:36.

However, some schools/politicians are pushing to do so; also, some Catholic schools teach it as a sidecourse in science.

All I'm meant by it was that schools are supposed to as non-biased as possible and even if its in only history, creationism deserves mention and a little bit of attention because it is believed by so so SO many people in the world that it is at least necessary to understand it. I try to look at this in a non-biased fashion because I'm very non-religious. I'm agnostic leaning athiest and the church I would attend is one notch right of the most liberal christian sect in the US. (United Church of Christ for the those interested).

But, to repeat. All I meant was that as such an influential idea it needs at least mention because of its popularity. I'm not saying that if Hannah Montana is popular that it should be taught in a Fine Arts class just rather important issues like "how we got here."

But @ Dauth, I totally agree that religion (or anything else NOT backed by science, math or reason) should be totally absent in science and mathematics classes.

Respectfully,

T_B

Also @ Zero, Catholic schools are totally legitimate in teaching these ideals because they are private schools are not compulsory (in the US at least) as required by the Federal Government. It is the parents right to pull them out of the school and send them to a public school.
Edited by The Basilisk, 03 December 2008 - 00:34.

The Basilisk, on 3 Dec 2008, 0:32, said:

I have no problem in history class and I agree, but teaching it as science? NO!!!!

The Basilisk, on 3 Dec 2008, 0:32, said:

Agree there too.

The Basilisk, on 3 Dec 2008, 0:32, said:

I know that, I went to one and learned the rights of a Catholic School, however, Science is a standard, its like Math, no matter where you go 2+2=4 (or fish in some cases....) and Energy=Matter. If you label something with no proof as Science, then it is not so. And if there is a school which only teaches Creationism... well, I won't touch on that. Anyway, Science is a standard, in that ALL Science needs to have proof, and therefore Creationism should NEVER be taught as a science. In fact, I think that there should be National Standards for ALL Science classes, made by REAL scientists of those fields.

Well I guess we're on the same page then

FO SHO!!

Right, I'm not going to discipline anyone, since through the thread content has been running out.

Expand on your points or don't post. I won't ask again and this does apply to every post in the PA.