Religion in schools

[Bogdan6]

Small Disclaimer: First off, I'm not against religion itself, I'm cool with anyone believing in anything as long as it doesn't stay 24/7 at my door trying to convince me his beliefs are better than mine. I'm just here to get your opinions on the subject.

Ok folks, so I live in Romania, the country has it's flaws, but there is only one particular thing I want to discuss with you. What's your opinion on teaching religion in school? First here's a little background: after the fall of communism, religion was introduced in school, with the claim that it's "part of our tradition" (ok, most things they added was just to oppose what communism did before). The problem is religion that is taught in all public schools from Romania isn't anything like history of religions or presenting each religion/confession for you to know. It's teaching everyone christian orthodoxism, whenether their pupils are protestant, catholics or jews, everyone must learn orthodoxism and will be examined (yes, believe it or not, they give us tests to see how much we know). There are options to take your child from the religion class and do something else, but in some cases they will ask to either bring "examination results" from your church (yes, actually know a case. Guy was catholic and had to go to the church's priest to give marks so the school folks know whenether or not they would let the guy pass the class) or do work around the school (which is ok, but it's a pretty recent thing around).

Now starting with this year, there came a law in which said religion class is merely optional, so if you don't want it, you can change it with anything else, such as volunteering to help around the school, art class or applied physics. I'm ok with this, I'd always shoot the physics class rather than being examined on prayers, but a lot of people are protesting against this measure and blame that the parliament and gouverment are trying to force us become atheist "like in communist times" or (in extreme cases) claim that "The leaders from Brussels want to send our new generations to hell".

Now my question is, what are your opinions about this and how would you react if something similar happened in your country? I'd mention most religion-class-teachers are actually priests (thus they have the "right" to tell your beliefs are heresy and yadayada) and while they actually teach in a public schools, they directly attack phyisics and biology lessons (in my case, the priest actually screamed when he saw a picture's of Darwin's evolution chain on our wall in the classroom).

[_BEAN_]

Why should it matter considering you can opt out of the class? Darwin in his own book stated his theory could be disproven by the scientific fact. The fact is no one knows how life began in the Universe, so dissing either belief on the matter is rather repugnant.

[Bogdan6]

Originally Posted by _BEAN_

Why should it matter considering you can opt out of the class?

Well as stated, even previously you could opt out of the class, but before going to it, there were a protocols and "why"s and "shouldn't"s so they wouldn't need to bother with you. The process is claimed to be simplified by the new law, except a lot of people seem to protest against it. And the protests people bring are dirrectly attacking other religions and/or confessions and differend other educations. I'd like to know more about people's view about it, rather on the class itself.

Originally Posted by _BEAN_

Darwin in his own book stated his theory could be disproven by the scientific fact. The fact is no one knows how life began in the Universe, so dissing either belief on the matter is rather repugnant.

Yes, a scientific theory bether than his can disaproove his theory, except that theory wasn't discovered yet. For me at least, Darwin's theory makes perfect sense, even the smallest bacteria is constantly mutating, adapting to a new environment or in other worlds, evolving, but we cannot be sure this isn't also God doing his job, I'm personally open to hear any kind of theory about life and origin of today's living creatures and I'll drag the conclusions myself. For a bunch of years, we were taught in biology classes about Darwin's theory, now we cannot simply boycott what other classes tell us and just follow the religion one. An actual quote from my teacher was that "We are adepts of the creationist theory, the oldest and the most accurate theory". ("we" as everyone attending his lessons, he wouldn't believe you if you told him otherwise).

Back on-topic, at least in my city, there were marches about countering the law (which again, doesn't remove religion classes from school, makes them optional) and people bringing large crosses and other religious symbols. This kind of shit is pretty uncommon, since people didn't protest like this even when ACTA was a thing, nor when they did changes in the medical system.

[Innoc]

It sounds like you're describing people with an axe to grind and the law change is just an excuse.

I agree with Bean. If it's optional then I am fine with that. I have to say that one of the best courses I attended during my college years was title "Bible as Literature". The professor gave a very balanced presentation that was impressive. Through the course there was never any clue given by the professor of what his beliefs may have been. What I learned from the course has stayed with me some 25+ years later. I believe that such material can be taught even in the earlier school years provided you have the right people presenting the material. All it takes is one immature idiot with an agenda to soil the impression for the public.

[AfterShock]

Assuming the schools are run by the state then yes, the majority of developed countries agree there should be a separation of church and state. (Secularism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

http://www.secularism.org.uk/about.html

Secularism is not atheism (lack of belief in God) and nor is it humanism (a nonreligious belief system). It is a political movement seeking the separation of religion and government, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion. This is said to add to democracy by protecting the rights of religious minorities. Secularism is often associated with the age of Enlightenment in Europe and plays a major role in Western society. Many secularists are religious and many religious people – recognising the value of keeping religion and government separate – are secular. There are states in Europe with an established church, such as Sweden and Norway, which are in the process of disestablishment. They do not see this as an anti-religious development and, indeed, the Lutheran church has endorsed the process.

Typically as countries become more developed and educated, their people (such as yourself) will start demanding more separation and balanced viewpoints, so they can decide and think for themselves what they want to believe, rather than being told.

[_BEAN_]

Originally Posted by AfterShock

Assuming the schools are run by the state then yes, the majority of developed countries agree there should be a separation of church and state. (Secularism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

http://www.secularism.org.uk/about.html



Typically as countries become more developed and educated, their people (such as yourself) will start demanding more separation and balanced viewpoints, so they can decide and think for themselves what they want to believe, rather than being told.

This statement is ironic considering the only viewpoint that is being taught in schools is based on the evolutionary theory. He has already stated that the school allows people to opt out of the class. Sounds to me he is upset that people are teaching religion in school, and due to his bias, wishes it to be removed.

[_BEAN_]

Originally Posted by Bogdan6

Yes, a scientific theory bether than his can disaproove his theory, except that theory wasn't discovered yet. For me at least, Darwin's theory makes perfect sense, even the smallest bacteria is constantly mutating, adapting to a new environment or in other worlds, evolving, but we cannot be sure this isn't also God doing his job, I'm personally open to hear any kind of theory about life and origin of today's living creatures and I'll drag the conclusions myself. For a bunch of years, we were taught in biology classes about Darwin's theory, now we cannot simply boycott what other classes tell us and just follow the religion one. An actual quote from my teacher was that "We are adepts of the creationist theory, the oldest and the most accurate theory". ("we" as everyone attending his lessons, he wouldn't believe you if you told him otherwise).

Evolution has yet to be empirically proven and the current genetic research keeps destroying the arguments for said theory. Bacteria do not evolve nor do they adapt when attacked with medicines. The medicine kills 99.9% of the bacteria and .01% have a genetic variation that help the percentage survive. This bacteria reproduces creating a stronger form of the bacteria. Its genetic variation saved it. This is natural selection. something mankind has been doing for centuries when it comes to livestock and plants. Evolution is still clinging to abiogeneis which has been proven to be scientifically impossible. I won't even get into the fact that it is a bigot's theory whose foundation states black people are less of a human than white people, or the fact that most of the "transitional fossils" were manufactured hoaxes. All of this data is left out of the discussion, which should not be going on.

If you don't believe in religion fine, but if you have the ability to opt out of a class that teaches it it isn't being forced on you. The US is a Constitutional Republic that has a democratic voting system; it is not a democracy. If you ask most people the difference between the two they could not tell you. In a democracy 51% of the people tell the 49% how to live. In a Constitutional Republic the people are garnered rights that 99% can't take away from the 1%.

As far as a separation clause in the US Constitution. It does not exist. In fact until 1956 the first amendment was used to allow presidents to call for days of prayer and fasting. Most people have no idea where the statement "separation of church and state" comes from; nor do they know that it has been used defend a person's right to exercise their religion in public for almost 200 years. The Separation clause has been used to allow church in public buildings, prayer on the Congress and Senate floors, the 10 commandments to be shown in schools and court houses, used to allow Congress to fund the printing of Bibles etc. Congress can make no law instituting a state religion or hinder people from exercising their faith in public or private.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by _BEAN_

Evolution has yet to be empirically proven and the current genetic research keeps destroying the arguments for said theory. Bacteria do not evolve nor do they adapt when attacked with medicines. The medicine kills 99.9% of the bacteria and .01% have a genetic variation that help the percentage survive. This bacteria reproduces creating a stronger form of the bacteria. Its genetic variation saved it. This is natural selection. something mankind has been doing for centuries when it comes to livestock and plants. Evolution is still clinging to abiogeneis which has been proven to be scientifically impossible. I won't even get into the fact that it is a bigot's theory whose foundation states black people are less of a human than white people, or the fact that most of the "transitional fossils" were manufactured hoaxes. All of this data is left out of the discussion, which should not be going on.

If you don't believe in religion fine, but if you have the ability to opt out of a class that teaches it it isn't being forced on you. The US is a Constitutional Republic that has a democratic voting system; it is not a democracy. If you ask most people the difference between the two they could not tell you. In a democracy 51% of the people tell the 49% how to live. In a Constitutional Republic the people are garnered rights that 99% can't take away from the 1%.

As far as a separation clause in the US Constitution. It does not exist. In fact until 1956 the first amendment was used to allow presidents to call for days of prayer and fasting. Most people have no idea where the statement "separation of church and state" comes from; nor do they know that it has been used defend a person's right to exercise their religion in public for almost 200 years. The Separation clause has been used to allow church in public buildings, prayer on the Congress and Senate floors, the 10 commandments to be shown in schools and court houses, used to allow Congress to fund the printing of Bibles etc. Congress can make no law instituting a state religion or hinder people from exercising their faith in public or private.

I was going to point out the miss on the Establishment Clause but what stated was broader than just the US. The real danger is in the binary choices that the religious orthodoxy or the anti-religious orthodoxy would have you believe are the only choices being offered or available. The truth is what's in place allows freedom already for the US for everyone. Its the zealots on either side that are the real problem.