Creation education

[juliod]

Should there be a law prohibiting the teaching of creationism to children?

Obviously, the usual arguement against this is based on religious freedom. And I have always strongly supported the freedom of all people to believe what they want.

But recently I have been having trouble with this argument. Mainly it is because religious people, as a whole, do not equally support freedom for others, including we atheists. They are quite happy to force the teaching of religious doctrine onto other people's children.

Then there is the issue of protecting children from harm. There are two parts to this. One is that allowing children to be taught things that are demonstrably false is harmful. The other is that by teaching children an anti-science doctrine you cripple them in the modern high-tech job market, another form of harm.

This applies to the nation too. It is clear today that first-world countries like the US depend on technology jobs to maintain their positions. We are harming ourselves by allowing children to be taught superstition, mysticism, or other forms of irrationalism.

DanZ

[LillSnopp]

Hello LillSnopp! It's nice to meet other non-Americans in this forum. I like you already.

You do? You know im straight right ? I have nothing against homosexuals, but thats not my thing. Its ok to admire me... at a distance, Like Otseng does

I too agree completely with this assessment. It boggles me that a nation that has contributed so immensely to both the arts and sciences is also filled with amazingly ignorant people. Watching the "Jaywalking" segment on Jay Leno's Tonight show, I see dozens of adult, middle-class Americans who have an even poorer understanding of American history and politics than I do; and I live on the opposite side of the world! Really, how does one live in the US and not know what Lincoln did, or how long "four score and seven years ago" is? Or not be able to recognize a picture of Condeleeza Rice? I agree with LillSnopp that nationalism is part of the problem, but they aren't even teaching that very well.

Impressed that you spelled Condeleeza correctly, but i assume that you cut-and-paste that we all do (just deny it and take the Glory).

Religion and Nationalism (hand in hand in this case) is of course the root of this problem. If your raised to believe that your country is the best, and that your culture is superior, and that your "stuff" is the glory of the world, i presume most would never change this (very very few americans have a realistic view of the world). At the same time, most americans never been abroad even, and if they have any opinions about another Nation, they usually just look down at them.

But let us avoid "Anti-Americanism" and "Jealousy", as this is called, coz im jealous... As most americans pointed out to me (not referring to anyone on This forum).

Those of us who belong to other countries can only feel a mix of contempt and fear when we look at certain aspects of American culture. Is this really the only world superpower, and the dominant force in global politics? It forces us to wonder what the world is coming to in future decades.

The problem here is, because of what i pointed out earlier is, that Americans dont understand that the World sees United States as an unstable dangerous country. And most likely would be responsible for any Nuclear War if it ever happens. They (the ordinary citizen) refuse to accept that there Country is not as "Great" as they have been indoctrinated.


You would only see this kind of behaviour from Nazi and other extremist groups in Europe, Which makes is somewhat ironic, non?

And for the Swedish Prime Minister to say "God Bless Sweden", well, lets say he would not be in office before he manage to run away from the screaming mob, as his religious views have nothing to do with his politics.

[Jose]

Pardon me for jumping in like this, LillSnopp, but it seems as if you lump all Americans into the same pile in your statements. I assure you, the characterization of Americans as geographically inept, mathematically and scientifically limited, and politically unsophisticated people who nonetheless hold themselves in extremely high esteem, does not apply to all of us. There is a rough correlation with world travel and with education--the less overall experience one has of others, the more likely one is to be characterized the way you have. Unfortunately, there were not enough of the rest of us in the last election to save the country (either that, or there were "irregularities" in the vote-counting, which is probably more likely...).

Aside from that minor point, what you say is abundantly true, but whenever anyone tries to point it out, too many Americans stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly. I find it very weird.

But then, they are probably trying to mimic their president--hence the general world opinion of a dangerous and unstable country.

Don't worry, though. Our Fearless Leader is taking us rapidly down the path of exhausting the oil supplies, destroying education, and a general all-around regression. We won't be a source of jealousy for very long.

[Aximili23]

Don't worry, though. Our Fearless Leader is taking us rapidly down the path of exhausting the oil supplies, destroying education, and a general all-around regression. We won't be a source of jealousy for very long.

I always find it very scary (though vindicating) to hear this from an American of all people. As irritating as the US can be, a world without the stability provided by US dominance has to be worse. And if American falls, one has to wonder what superpower might emerge to take its place. I'd like to see an eastern nation rise to power, but I can tell that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Hopefully, the moderate sensibility that the European nations have shown lately will come to dominate the globe.

[LillSnopp]

Pardon me for jumping in like this, LillSnopp, but it seems as if you lump all Americans into the same pile in your statements. I assure you, the characterization of Americans as geographically inept, mathematically and scientifically limited, and politically unsophisticated people who nonetheless hold themselves in extremely high esteem, does not apply to all of us.

Of course, it is just an generalisation, All americans are not like this, but most are. No insult was intended, i presumed you knew i was talking in general.

Aside from that minor point, what you say is abundantly true, but whenever anyone tries to point it out, too many Americans stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly. I find it very weird.

I know, to make a simile here, it would be like Europeans stick their fingers in their ears and say "lalala", when anyone is talking about the holocaust. We know what we have done, and what our history are. and we may be ashamed of it, but we dont deny it.

Don't worry, though. Our Fearless Leader is taking us rapidly down the path of exhausting the oil supplies, destroying education, and a general all-around regression. We won't be a source of jealousy for very long.

I thought you already where there

I always find it very scary (though vindicating) to hear this from an American of all people. As irritating as the US can be, a world without the stability provided by US dominance has to be worse. And if American falls, one has to wonder what superpower might emerge to take its place. I'd like to see an eastern nation rise to power, but I can tell that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Hopefully, the moderate sensibility that the European nations have shown lately will come to dominate the globe.

Well, i dont know where you are from, but this is a strange comment.
_TheEuropean Nations have been taking care of its fellow world citizins for a very long time. Whiles United States have been in war (you choose which), the Europeans have been helping people survive, usually in the same country the U.S is bombing and killing.

You seem to believe that Pacifism is bad, and its good to kill murder and rape other countries(?), like the U.S have been doing for quite some time. Just because the United States portray themselves as the glory of the World, does not make it True. You sound like an average american.

[Dilettante]

Hopefully, the moderate sensibility that the European nations have shown lately will come to dominate the globe.

As a European, I'm afraid your view of my continent is a bit too idealized.

Well, i dont know where you are from, but this is a strange comment.
_TheEuropean Nations have been taking care of its fellow world citizins for a very long time. Whiles United States have been in war (you choose which), the Europeans have been helping people survive, usually in the same country the U.S is bombing and killing.

You must be kidding. EU agricultural policy is starving Third World farmers, who are unable to sell us their products. France played a key role in the Rwandan holocaust, and we all let the ex-Yugoslavians slaughter each other. We certainly are..ehem.. great caregivers.

You seem to believe that Pacifism is bad, and its good to kill murder and rape other countries(?), like the U.S have been doing for quite some time.

You're attacking a straw man. Aximili never said murder and rape were OK. Besides, pacifism is not always a good idea: it doesn't stop the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world.

[LillSnopp]

You must be kidding. EU agricultural policy is starving Third World farmers, who are unable to sell us their products.

You gotta be kidding me. WE are starving Africa?
Not, lets see how this works, If we DONT give food to the African Nations, We are Bad. If we DO give food, we are "destroying there productivity".....

You know very very well as everyone else, that we get the bad-side-of-the-stick whatever options we choose. Sure, we could be bashing the Tariffs (that the United States also have), and i agree, it could be looked over. But are we suppose to HELP them sell there products to us? That would mean WE would have to pay for doing this, WE would have to take care of everything, dont kid yourself, you know very well that the African companies that can manage to do this, are not worked against in any way.

France played a key role in the Rwandan holocaust, and we all let the ex-Yugoslavians slaughter each other. We certainly are..ehem.. great caregivers.

Nothing the U.S have not done, hence not of importance, personally, as a side note, im behind that "holocaust" (Both Rwanda and "European" Yugoslavia). Africa has 800 million people, whom 99% do nothing to the world except cost us resources. But i guess im an evil Nazi for saying that. Anyways... You get my point.

[Dilettante]

You know very very well as everyone else, that we get the bad-side-of-the-stick whatever options we choose. Sure, we could be bashing the Tariffs (that the United States also have), and i agree, it could be looked over.

It's both the tariffs and the subsidies to our farmers. It's impossible for Africans to compete under such conditions. Open markets are what's going to help Africa, more than aid. And it's not only us who always get the "bad side of the stick". The US does also.

Nothing the U.S have not done, hence not of importance, personally, as a side note, im behind that "holocaust" (Both Rwanda and "European" Yugoslavia). Africa has 800 million people, whom 99% do nothing to the world except cost us resources. But i guess im an evil Nazi for saying that. Anyways... You get my point.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And no, you're not necessarily an evil nazi for saying that, but I definitely can't agree with your approach to ethics. 99% of Africans don't use up a lot of resources anyway. I don't understand why you think this is so.

As a side note, do you work for DARPA? That avatar looks familiar...

[LillSnopp]

It's both the tariffs and the subsidies to our farmers. It's impossible for Africans to compete under such conditions. Open markets are what's going to help Africa, more than aid. And it's not only us who always get the "bad side of the stick". The US does also.

Really now, so you dont think that "free" market would´nt whipe them out instead? This is not China you know, they hardly produce enought food for themselves. If they had a surplus sure.... But do they ?

Two wrongs don't make a right. And no, you're not necessarily an evil nazi for saying that, but I definitely can't agree with your approach to ethics. 99% of Africans don't use up a lot of resources anyway. I don't understand why you think this is so.

But they use resources, and they do not give enought back (you should give more then you use), that was what i meant.

As a side note, do you work for DARPA? That avatar looks familiar...

That would be infringement on my privacy.

[MagusYanam]

Besides, pacifism is not always a good idea: it doesn't stop the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I used to be a Mennonite, and I still consider myself to be a pacifist, but I think of pacifism in a different way than I used to. Pacifism doesn't just mean not indulging in war or violence.

When I say that I am a pacifist, I mean that I think war can never be the right thing to do, and violence can never be justified. There have been rare points in history, however, when violence has been the only choice, as all others had been exhausted. The Civil War and World War II are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.

IMHO, war is always a sign of failure and weakness. In the early 1800's, in our unwillingness to confront the national problem of slavery we failed to wean ourselves of the abominable institution. In seeking vengeance on Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, we (the Allied Powers) failed to prevent fascism and communism from making drastic inroads into the politics of central and southern Europe.

Of course, there is little profit in 'tales of interest', but any honest pacifist will tell you that in order to build and maintain a state of peace, we must be able to think and act creatively as nations holding the interests of social justice, human rights and equality. Gandhi drove the British from India using the creative and non-violent politics of satyagraha; it makes no sense to think that the same cannot work for other brutal, oppressive regimes.

[LillSnopp]

Pacifism just mean you prefer peace. IF anything would happen that would really need aggressive force, EU would have no problems supplying, or acting. But as you well know, nothing like this has happened or been needed for 60 years.

But i guess the none Pacifism of the U.S shows great strength?
All does wars that was needed to protect the World:

Gulf mach II ?
Gulf mach I ?
Korea ?
Vietnam ?

Oh well......