This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Not what to believe, but
how to understand religion
.
The syllabus is designed for students in all schools and ensures students study more than one religious tradition. The course enables students to come to an understanding that each religious tradition has its own integrity and contributes to a well-ordered society.
I linked it before, but nobody seems to have noticed, so I'll do it again. Can I get some thoughts on what people think about this course? This is the Studies of Religion course that high school students in Sydney can do.
Post by
Adamsm
That's more or less the same thing that is offered at most Canadian High Schools and there is a more advanced version in College and Universities; that's why I don't get how this is a true debate, when the classes already are around .
Post by
FatalHeaven
That's more or less the same thing that is offered at most Canadian High Schools and there is a more advanced version in College and Universities; that's why I don't get how this is a true debate, when the classes already are around .
Any school (public) I have ever known in the States does not have it. Obviously in different Countries that may be different. For the record, I'm not saying public schools in the States don't, just that to date, I haven't heard of it, anywhere that I've lived.
Also, how does the fact that something is already happening some places make it any less of a debate? I could list a lot of things that already are around/happening legally, and I can assure you they, and this, are debateable.
Forgive me, I'm just so friggin' tired of people saying a topic isn't a debate; when clearly they are because I'm not pulling this out of thin air; contrary to what it seems is some users beliefs.
Post by
Adamsm
It's not a true debate in that it already happens; I've heard of classes in the States for this, so there are school districts that take the view that it's alright.
Now, just to my mind at least; the debate for it would be more along the lines is it's alright for schools to teach specific religious values in the public school system(as I've said in other threads, both my elementary and high school had the reading of the Lord's Prayer for some years till a law went into effect to change that).
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Though for a completely
different reason
than the religious usually have.
You know when a preacher explains why everyone who doesn't agree with him is going to hell? I severely dislike it when preachers do that. It makes the rest of us preachers look bad. I certainly wouldn't link his stuff here and present it as my views. I wouldn't link mocking articles about why I'm right and everyone who believes differently about God is wrong. I hold those opinions, but don't think that slamming everyone around is going to persuade them. Do you see what I'm saying?
Post by
Squishalot
It's not a true debate in that it already happens; I've heard of classes in the States for this, so there are school districts that take the view that it's alright.
Now, just to my mind at least; the debate for it would be more along the lines is it's alright for schools to teach specific religious values in the public school system(as I've said in other threads, both my elementary and high school had the reading of the Lord's Prayer for some years till a law went into effect to change that).
It's a debate in that some people think they shouldn't be allowed, despite the fact it's being done. It's like the question of whether Creationism should be in the science curriculum - just because it's being done doesn't take away from the question of whether it
should
be done.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#30: Should the Statue of Limitations be done away with?
Definition.
I think it should. If you break the law, I don't think you should get a "get out of jail free" card after a few years. If you raise up a horrendous credit card bill, you should have to pay it. If you owe taxes, you should pay them. These are just a few of many examples.
Post by
Magician22773
They absolutely should. Though for a completely
different reason
than the religious usually have.
I wonder if I expressed my views of just how pathetic and ignorant I think you are for being an atheist if it would be accepted here the way you can express your opinion of people that have faith?
Post by
Adamsm
#30: Should the Statue of Limitations be done away with?
Definition.
I think it should. If you break the law, I don't think you should get a "get out of jail free" card after a few years. If you raise up a horrendous credit card bill, you should have to pay it. If you owe taxes, you should pay them. These are just a few of many examples.
I'd say it depends on the crime; in all honesty the only one I could see being removed is the one for rape/sexual abuse: There's a five year limit to that, which means a lot of kids who were abused as children miss out on seeing on their abuser punished if he doesn't do it again(low chance but there). But for petty anty things, I'd say it should remain.
Post by
FatalHeaven
They absolutely should. Though for a completely
different reason
than the religious usually have.
I wonder if I expressed my views of just how pathetic and ignorant I think you are for being an atheist if it would be accepted here the way you can express your opinion of people that have faith?
Or people will just choose to not weigh in on either side. That's what I did.
Post by
gamerunknown
Pretty much what adams said. Certain crimes, it doesn't make sense. Others, it's proximal and distal causes (murder where someone's on life support for several years).
Sometimes, you don't want something hanging over your head indefinitely - time has a distorting effect on witness testimony and capacity to collect evidence. IANAL though.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#31: Did President Barack Obama deserve to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
Please, if it is possible, try to base it on facts and not bias.
I don't particularly think he deserved to be awarded it. Not because I don't like him, which I don't, but based on facts. In his acceptance speech, President Obama even admitted that he did not deserve the Prize. He had not done anything yet, when the Prize was awarded. Actually, it was kind of embarrassing for the Nobel Prize committee to make that egregious of an award. Since the award, he has embroiled us in two more regional conflicts (Yemen and Libya) and his vitriolic rhetoric aimed at sitting congress members and state governors does little to bring peace even in our own country.
Plainly said: The President did not perform any act or establish a forum or institution that, in any manner, encouraged, enhanced, or established peace. The Prize was awarded with hopes of him earning it.
Many say he got it simply because he wasn't George W. Bush. I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that. But I am left wondering WHY he got it.
Post by
gamerunknown
...his vitriolic rhetoric aimed at sitting congress members and state governors does little to bring peace even in our own country.
Any quotes?
Plainly said: The President did not perform any act or establish a forum or institution that, in any manner, encouraged, enhanced, or established peace.
I was about to cite his executive order when I found
this
. Brings me back to
this
(I strongly recommend "The Trials of Kissinger" to everyone, too).
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
No. Running a country that is at war should instantly disqualify you. It has "peace" right in the name of it.
Post by
Lombax
They absolutely should. Though for a completely
different reason
than the religious usually have.
I wonder if I expressed my views of just how pathetic and ignorant I think you are for being an atheist if it would be accepted here the way you can express your opinion of people that have faith?
Ahahahaha, you're hilarious. Please tell me how not believing in a god with zero proof of existence is ignorant.
Post by
Rankkor
Wait........... HE WON A NOBEL PEACE AWARD? When? and in heaven's name WHY? are those people insane?
Post by
Atik
Wait........... HE WON A NOBEL PEACE AWARD? When? and in heaven's name WHY? are those people insane?
Happened right at the beginning of his presidency. It was before he had even had much chance to do anything.
I don't know of anyone who thinks he deserved it. Including Obama himself.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.