Students to be taught there is no God

[CWBetts]

You are wrong. However, you are also equating things that aren’t equivalent. “Making voting easier” is sometimes good and sometimes bad. If it leads to abuse, then it is bad. Why does voting need to be easier? If someone is too lazy or consider voting unimportant, why should I make it easier for them?

There may be some individuals who are doing improper things to prevent people from voting, but that happens on both sides. Neither party is interested in limiting the votes of citizens who qualify.

WRONG! I live in Ohio. The previous (republican) administration did everything within their power to make voting more difficult for the poor (who typically vote democrat). And it has been the rpublicans whining the loudest about early voting, which makes it easier on college students and people worinking multiple jobs (again, democrat voters)

 

[RobertLGarrett]

WRONG! I live in Ohio. The previous (republican) administration did everything within their power to make voting more difficult for the poor (who typically vote democrat).

Biased opinion on your part, so it is meaningless when discussing the definition of “conservative.” You didn’t even bother to state what the evil Republicans did.

CWBetts:

And it has been the rpublicans whining the loudest about early voting, which makes it easier on college students and people worinking multiple jobs (again, democrat voters)

Biased opinion on your part, so it is meaningless when discussing the definition of “conservative.” Early voting is easily abused, and what is the point? Why early? Why have a specific voting day at all, if you are going to then have early voting? I never understand why early voting is so important to some people. (btw…I live in a state where we vote by mail.)

Besides, since there is a push right now by liberals to silence conservative talk radio (i.e. limit the freedom of speech), I think there are more concerns on your side of the aisle when it comes to putting limitations on the populace.

 

[neat62]

CWBetts;

This would go unchanged until the 14th Amendment, which would extend the right to blacks, insited upon not by Republicans, but Northern Democrats.

Wasn’t it the 15th amendment?

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

And today, we have that block voting 95% in favor of socialism, support for abortion, gay marriage, etc, even though they may be mostly socially conservative.

Agin, the more liberal of the The next changes to government were brought about by the Progressive Party, again a liberal movement. The Progressives saw the extension of voting rights to women and the popular election of Senators, which previously were selected by state legislatures.

And today, we have NOW, failing marriages, legalized abortion, break up of the family.

Finally the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was pshed through by Lynon Baines Johnson—another Liberal Democrat. So you see the limitation of voting rights and participation in government was not simple rhetoric, but evidenced by history.

That vote was based on North and South politics. Both Dems and Repubs from the south opposed that legislation, while both Dems and Repubs from the north favored that bill.

Johnson also increased the move to socialism in the US and cost us tens of trillions of dollars even today creating a large dependancy class. And lead to the socialist revoultion of the 60’s. Much of what he pushed through then, have attacked freedom for all, today.

There is more to this nation than minorities. Even the Founding Fathers were cautious about who got to vote, and for good reason. Many of these “proofs” that you use, were political points tools. “Vote for me, I’ll let blacks vote!” As US Grant found out in his election win for the Presidency. States lost rights(freedom) under some of these laws.

 

[neat62]

CWBetts;

What about the contiued attempts of Conservatives to disenfranchise the poor in presidential elections, particularly in the battleground states. THe Republicans are opposed to anything that makes voting easier, and support anything that makes it more difficult. Don’t tell my I am wrong…I LIVE in one of those states, and have had to deal with it.

Recall Union thugs intimidating people. They supported Democrats. Any outrage over that?

And just because you live somewhere, does not mean that you get the whole story or even the truth. I’m sure there are many in Illinois who don’t know the whole story about ACORN.

 

[grampben]

Yet the Vatican has their own military

I thought we were talking about US conservatism
For this reason, as well as the fact that the Swiss Guards aren’t fighting a war, your point is irrelevant.
My point about JPII is relevant because he spoke out against the Iraq war (which by the way the USA and the UK fought in).
I know it wasn’t infallible teaching, but i said it in response to a comment that religious meant pro military, and seeing as we’re talking USA (by your own words) the most relevant issue is Iraq.

 

[Kaninchen]

We seem to have gotten a long way away from Oz.

 

[CWBetts]

CWBetts;

Recall Union thugs intimidating people. They supported Democrats. Any outrage over that?

And just because you live somewhere, does not mean that you get the whole story or even the truth. I’m sure there are many in Illinois who don’t know the whole story about ACORN.

Union voter inimidation is a myth

 

[RobertLGarrett]

We seem to have gotten a long way away from Oz.

Yeah…I noticed that too…not sure how we went from students in Australia being taught there is no God to a discussion on the definition of conservative…to a discussion on US conservatism. Forums are fun!

 

[neat62]

grampben;

I thought we were talking about US conservatism

Whatever.

For this reason, as well as the fact that the Swiss Guards aren’t fighting a war, your point is irrelevant.

Then why have them?

My point about JPII is relevant because he spoke out against the Iraq war

What Pope talks in support of war?

I know it wasn’t infallible teaching, but i said it in response to a comment that religious meant pro military, and seeing as we’re talking USA (by your own words) the most relevant issue is Iraq.

Right, pro military. And I pointed out the even the Vatican has a military. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[grampben]

grampben;

Whatever.

Then why have them?

What Pope talks in support of war?

Right, pro military. And I pointed out the even the Vatican has a military. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Having a military does not make one pro military. But it appears there is no point in arguing with you.

 

[neat62]

Having a military does not make one pro military.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[eldestofvic]

I’m only doing this as it appears that no one seems particularly interested in getting back to the subject of this thread so… what’s the point?

*More Thread Drift]

Actually the Vatican does not have a “military”. As the Vatican is completely surrounded by Italy its military protection is provided by them. The Vatican has a force of volunteers called the Swiss Guard whose only responsibilty is to protect the Pope (body-guards, not army).

As to the notion that “no pope is pro-war”. This too is faulty as the Catholic church does, in fact, teach a doctrine of just war.

*/More Thread Drift]

 

[grampben]

I’m only doing this as it appears that no one seems particularly interested in getting back to the subject of this thread so… what’s the point?

*More Thread Drift]

Actually the Vatican does not have a “military”. As the Vatican is completely surrounded by Italy its military protection is provided by them. The Vatican has a force of volunteers called the Swiss Guard whose only responsibilty is to protect the Pope (body-guards, not army).

As to the notion that “no pope is pro-war”. This too is faulty as the Catholic church does, in fact, teach a doctrine of just war.

*/More Thread Drift]

I have mentioned Just War many times on this thread. But being pro Just War theory does not make one pro war, quite the contrary, if one was pro war, it wouldn’t matter how just that war was.
I implore everyone here to read up on the Just War theory.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I have mentioned Just War many times on this thread. But being pro Just War theory does not make one pro war, quite the contrary,** if one was pro war, it wouldn’t matter how just that war was.**
I implore everyone here to read up on the Just War theory.

By that definition though, everyone would say they are not “pro war.” We have discussed Just War theory many times on CAF. The decision on whether a war is just or not is made by the political leaders, so they are the ones who review the criteria.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

So, in most cases, certainly here in the US, your choice is not anti-war versus pro-war when you are voting for a candidate. What you are actually voting for is the person whom you believe has the best prudential judgment.

This is even true if you are in Australia being taught that there is no God.

 

[eldestofvic]

Yes about those Australians being taught there was no Gd. I seem to recall someone mentioning that somewhere around here.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Union voter intimidation is a myth

Tell that to someone that believes it.

My husband had to move our family out of our home one year it got so bad. The phone company had a tap on our phone and the only immediate family knew were we were. My husband was vocal in his opposition to the unions “choice” for election.

 

[eldestofvic]

Okay… so about those Australian atheist kids being taught there is no Gd.

This is not a question of Liberal vs Conservative. This has nothing to do with (as far as I can tell) whether or not the pope has a gun fetish or if Unionists are bullies.

This is, in my mind, an opportunity. Atheists are more wrong than even believers can imagine (source: Mere Christianity). In fact, it really is only believers who can possibly see how wrong they are. I think it a rather glaring tactical error then that atheists want to bring open study of Atheism into the public sphere of the classroom. In the classroom, optioned as a religious study, it will not be able to avoid objective comparison to Christianity. As a belief system it will then be possible to show that it fails miserably by comparison (and this can be done without even mentioning touchstone subjects like Evolution).

 

[Kaninchen]

Okay… so about those Australian atheist kids being taught there is no Gd.

This is not a question of Liberal vs Conservative. This has nothing to do with (as far as I can tell) whether or not the pope has a gun fetish or if Unionists are bullies.

This is, in my mind, an opportunity. Atheists are more wrong than even believers can imagine (source: Mere Christianity). In fact, it really is only believers who can possibly see how wrong they are. I think it a rather glaring tactical error then that atheists want to bring open study of Atheism into the public sphere of the classroom. In the classroom, optioned as a religious study, it will not be able to avoid objective comparison to Christianity. As a belief system it will then be possible to show that it fails miserably by comparison (and this can be done without even mentioning touchstone subjects like Evolution).

That’s all very interesting, I’m sure, but it’s a class that’s being run on ‘Humanist Applied Ethics’ for the children of atheist and agnostic parents at the same time that the children of Christians are getting their Christianity lessons and (possibly) Jews getting their Judaism lessons and Muslims their Islam lessons etc, etc.

Rather than just opting their children out of these sorts of lessons altogether, agnostic and atheist parents have an option of their own.

These are, by the way, primary school children - probably of ages 4-11.

 

[eldestofvic]

Yay!!! Someone posting on the topic!!!

That’s all very interesting, I’m sure,

I figure if you actually thought it was interesting you’ld be a little less patronizing in your tone.

but it’s a class that’s being run on ‘Humanist Applied Ethics’ for the children of atheist and agnostic parents

Which is precisely what I was getting at. If indeed this is going to be a study of Ethics it will soon be discovered that one cannot explore Ethics of any sort in any depth (primary grades inclusive - well the later primary grades anyway) before one realizes that Humanism(read Atheism) and Ethics don’t mix.

at the same time that the children of Christians are getting their Christianity lessons

If the Australian Public School system is anything like the Public School systems in any of the other former colonies I doubt strongly that Christians are getting “Christianity” lessons. More likely it will be some kind of a watered down “Comparitive Religious” studies.

and (possibly) Jews getting their Judaism lessons and Muslims their Islam lessons etc, etc.

I’ve seen these trial balloons floated before in my own multicultural country (usually by kindly but misguided “wanna-be’s”). Invariably they are shot down not by the educational system but more often by the various religion’s leaders.

Rather than just opting their children out of these sorts of lessons altogether, agnostic and atheist parents have an option of their own.

As I said above…that’s a good thing.

These are, by the way, primary school children - probably of ages 4-11.

Thankyou for that but I am perfectly capable of reading (okay now I’m being patronizing…ooops). However, this does cause me to shake my head just a little. “Humanist Applied Ethics”??? For a four year old??? Do Humanist teach children to say “Please” and “Thankyou”; put their toys away, not push in line somehow differently then the religious?

 

[Kaninchen]

Yay!!! Someone posting on the topic!!!

I figure if you actually thought it was interesting you’ld be a little less patronizing in your tone.

I thought I’d better keep to a similar tone as yours in your dismissive handling of atheism, you’d achieved it so impressively.

Which is precisely what I was getting at. If indeed this is going to be a study of Ethics it will soon be discovered that one cannot explore Ethics of any sort in any depth (primary grades inclusive - well the later primary grades anyway) before one realizes that Humanism and Ethics don’t mix.

See my response above.

Thankyou for that but I am perfectly capable of reading (okay now I’m being patronizing…ooops).

As I said, you do it so well.

However, this does cause me to shake my head just a little. “Humanist Applied Ethics”??? For a four year old??? Do Humanist teach children to say “Please” and “Thankyou”; put their toys away, not push in line somehow differently then the religious?

Perhaps the humanist group have their curriculum online or some description of it.