Christian assemblies in schools could face axe over claims they infringe children's human rights

Gackt · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:40

Hopefully they do abolish them. There's no need for an assembly of a particular religion. You can teach the same kinds of values and whatever else is involved in an assembly (it's been a while) in a neutral fashion. By that I mean avoiding both religious bias and atheist bias.

A child does not have the tools with which to make rational decisions about their beliefs (although that in itself is a paradox as religious beliefs typically defy rationality and logic) and as such shouldn't be subject to the kinds of views that come with those faiths.

It's along the same lines as child baptism. It's an exercise in brainwashing, and actually (in Christian faith) has no spiritual value.

Of course it doesn't always work. Just like listening to certain music doesn't make you want to go around having sex with everyone, taking drugs, shooting up other gangs, committing suicide etc, but for some people....it does. And it's a lot more important when you have children involved.

Edit: This sort of things brings up the same sour taste as watching certain children in the United States trying to convert people to Christianity, showing overt discrimination towards homosexuals and claiming that "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" to non-believers.

rypt · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:41

vonhelmet said:
Only if the existence is scientifically testable.

Existence of anything that has an affect on the physical world is testable

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:42

rypt said:
Because something existing or not is the realm of science, not the realm of court or whatever

Really?

rypt · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:42

Castiel said:
Really?

Do you go to court to have them state that evolution is a lie?

Glaucus · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:43

rypt said:
Existence of anything that has an affect on the physical world is testable

Not by science, science is only interested in the eadiedt method, not the actual method as this is untestable.

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:43

rypt said:
Existence of anything that has an affect on the physical world is testable

What about the meta-physical or spiritual world.....

Gackt · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:43

rypt said:
Existence of anything that has an affect on the physical world is testable

But only testable within the confines of that physical world which is bound by certain rules and laws. A true test would be done outside of that physical world, in order to eliminate bias.

Davies_M · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:43

vonhelmet said:
If you can, then I'm not sure anyone's done it yet.

Uh...what?

anyway, it sure isn't a full understnading, but is a step closer and a good basis to what we describe as love
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7815095.stm

I did read a few very good articles a while back, will search now, but I think that one is pretty solid. Haven't read it all yet.

CD32 · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:44

Castiel said:
I see no reference to any previous disagreement from another thread. I gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions in your first post, you decided to continue your diatribe. I think the problem may be yours.

hmmm

Castiel said:
Of course you are ignoring the past posting history of yourself in my obviously tongue in cheek retort to BigglePip

Why not just accept a spade to dig yourself a grave. What an obnoxious self-righteous piece of **** you are.

Patient Keeper · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:44

Castiel said:
Some of your views deserve ridicule in my opinion, if I am wrong quit whining about it like a girl and explain your views in a way that doesn't come across as bigoted and ridiculous. I'll listen and judge you on the merit of your argument, nothing more or less.

How exactly is that possible when even when you are presented with a peer reviewed journal or government statistics to back up the 'bigoted' view, you still call the poster a racist/bigot/idiot?

As far as I can see, you have never posted any sort of evidence other than your rambling interpretations from your own Quran that you keep at home, and you act like that somehow adds credibility to your views?

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:44

rypt said:
Do you go to court to have them state that evolution is a lie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

rypt · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:45

Castiel said:
What about the meta-physical or spiritual world.....

Neither of those have been proven to exist afaik

Castiel said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

I am not even going to dignify that with a reply

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:46

Patient Keeper said:
How exactly is that possible when even when you are presented with a peer reviewed journal or government statistics to back up the 'bigoted' view, you still call the poster a racist/bigot/idiot?

As far as I can see, you have never posted any sort of evidence other than your rambling interpretations from your own Quran that you keep at home, and you act like that somehow adds credibility to your views?

What are you talking about....

CD32 · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:50

Patient Keeper said:
How exactly is that possible when even when you are presented with a peer reviewed journal or government statistics to back up the 'bigoted' view, you still call the poster a racist/bigot/idiot?

As far as I can see, you have never posted any sort of evidence other than your rambling interpretations from your own Quran that you keep at home, and you act like that somehow adds credibility to your views?

Amen.

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:51

CD32 said:
hmmm

Why not just accept a spade to dig yourself a grave. What an obnoxious self-righteous piece of **** you are.

So you do a little editing to make it appear like something other than the truth is apparent. How honest of you.

Tell you what, you explain what you meant and I'll accept it at face value...

or you can continue to swear at me if you like.

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:52

rypt said:
I am not even going to dignify that with a reply

Why not, you asked if a court had ever been asked to make a judgement on evolution. It has.

CD32 · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:52

Castiel said:
What are you talking about....

How can you possibly understand what patient keeper is making sense of when you clearly sidestep what I put to you. There's a pickaxe..dig yourself a grave...

CD32 · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:54

Castiel said:
So you do a little editing to make it appear like something other than the truth is apparent. How honest of you.

Tell you what, you explain what you meant and I'll accept it at face value...

or you can continue to swear at me if you like.

Oh ffsk Do yourself a favour....just give it a rest. You are just tedious.

Castiel · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:55

CD32 said:
How can you possibly understand what patient keeper is making sense of when you clearly sidestep what I put to you. There's a pickaxe..dig yourself a grave...

So you have given peer reviewed accepted evidence in this thread...or indeed the one on Muslims.

Patient Keeper · 29 Dec 2010 at 00:55

Castiel said:
Not valid to you. Nor me for that matter, however it doesn't mean it's not valid to them.

Scientific evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

So essentially what this implies is, that I can make up anything I want, present it as my 'faith based evidence', and you will classify that as valid?