It should only be taught under the title: "Religious Doctrine". It's perfectly reasonable to know what religion X believes.
It wouldn't be unfair to have it as required reading (again, under the title: "Religious Doctrine"). There is one reason to include it and one reason not to:
- for: so much of the doctrine is left over in culture, and knowing it may also help students understand history.
- against: it's just plain poorly written and incoherent. Generally, the goal of a school is to help young people think clearly, so reading a piece that's so scattered and inconsistent may not be very helpful in helping children learn to articulate themselves.
Any time somebody makes an ill-informed decision (especially if they're in some position of power), then there's a risk they'll do something stupid. Since religious organizations can claim any terrible thing to be true (gays have no rights, burn the witch, hey let's go on a crusade, etc.) and don't have to back it up with any well informed argument, they can get away with anything.
Needless to say the United Church (or insert other liberal religious org.) isn't a particularly frightening place, but there are many out there who are extremely illogical and malicious in their beliefs.
I'm scared of any organization that's unpredictable and has a history of violence, such as some religious groups.
It's true, and I'm in the same boat. And it's not right. But if it were needed desperately enough, there would be a group out there advocating just those rights. Despite some pretty silly affirmative action type dealings here and there, we've had it pretty good.
Make sure everyone's equal by promoting the rights of EVERYBODY and yours won't disappear. You shouldn't have to apologize for things that your great grandfather was a part of, as you're not guilty of anything (as far as I'm aware). But anyone who's holding on to old dogma needs to be educated, so these groups are important.
It's all a function of geography. In North America, and for the most part in South America, Europe and Oceania and a few scattered places in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, women are equal.
They are not equal everywhere, so woman are not treated equally yet.
Please note that equality does not mean sameness. Looking at wage statistics doesn't make sense when we're biologically different. It's quite possible to be different, but be morally equivalent, and that is the case.
Different chromosomes mean different tendencies. For example, there was a lot of concern about the lack of women in technical fields in the 70's. When all the data came back in, girls were not "deficient" in mathematics, it turned out they all just went into medicine, or non-technical fields as a choice.
Science doesn't do "proof". It identifies the theories which best support all available evidence. Then tries it's damnedest to prove those new theories wrong.
Since the theory of evolution manages to be compatible with every scientific observation ever made, not to mention the fact that its principles are used to design vaccines, it has come as close to proof as any scientific theory can. The day evolution is proven wrong is the day I'll go back and check on gravity and atomic theory, too. They're all on equal footing at this point.
Well put. It's also worth noting that the universe probably wasn't created by a theory: neither the big bang theory or the "god theory". It was probably either a big bang or god. Or the more recently proposed big bounce theory could also be a candidate.
Has anyone stopped to consider why it would be a problem if Obama was a Muslim? He's provided the freedom of religion under your constitution, just like everyone else. Saying that he shouldn't be allowed the presidency because he's a muslim (which he isn't) is just as bad as saying he shouldn't have it because he's black.
If all goes well during his presidency, then his religion shouldn't make much difference. The United States was the first secular country and has a constitution that was designed to keep it separate from religion (though I'm aware that it hasn't worked out too well in the last 8 years).
You can "believe" something without "faith". I'm only 99.999% sure that the atomic theory of matter reflects reality. That belief (or at least my level of confidence in it) would change if I were shown evidence to the contrary. If I were fairly certain (say 99% certain) that god doesn't exist, then I would consider myself an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic). Most atheists base their beliefs on this sort of empirical evaluation.
That being said it is certainly POSSIBLE to be "faithful" that there is no god. It's just an unlikely position.
Pick it up at the weekly farmer's market (most of it is organic). It doesn't cost any more, and the farmers are usually wicked cool. (And have you seen the chicks who go there!?) The reduced shipping distances from buying local organic also reduce fossil fuel consumption.
