Hitler was also for "Traditional Family Values", from his Wikipedia page

"Nazi policies toward women strongly encouraged them to stay at home to bear children and keep house. In a September 1934 speech to the National Socialist Women's Organization, Adolf Hitler argued that for the German woman her "world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home." "

He proposed what we now call a "Nuclear Family", a working Father who supports his Stay-at-Home Wife and tends to the children. Sounds kinda like a conservative idea, doesnt it?

Maybe Hitler was Conservative?

NO

He was politically nothing special, being fairly moderate if anything. But regardless of his political ideals, both sides seem childish here or resorting to the "Hitler bounces off me and sticks to you" approach. Why not actually talk about the issues?

Depends on your definition of better.

I remember reading an article a while back that stated bisexual and gay people have sex more often and have more sexual partners then heterosexuals, but I cannot find where I read that, so I cant back it up. SO if you're a very sexual person, being a Homosexual might give you a better life. And you don't have to worry about childbirth! (though protection should still always be used)

However, there has always and will always be a social stigma attached to being gay.

(I believe this is a leftover from out evolutionary past, after all, a species that has a high levels of homosexuality will have fewer offspring, and less offspring means less chances for survival.These days of course we've risen far beyond the need for such rationalizations)

So if you're someone who cant tolerate being criticized by some members of your community, you might have a worse life then a heterosexual. Gay teens have a significantly higher suicide rate for just this reason (2-3 times more likely then their heterosexual counterparts)

No, he was not a good leader. While he did build up a powerful German Economy and Military, his personal choices, such as the Invasion of the USSR, lead to the downfall of his Government. His personal hatred for communism, and his failure to anticipate the enemy's basic strategies make him a terrible leader.

His personal hatred of Communism lead him to attack the Soviet Union, as he viewed Communism as a threat to his Fascist government.he needed simply to abide the non-aggression treaties he had with Stalin, who was content with peace on the Eastern Front, most likely, the Nazi's would still rule from Paris to Berlin, and possibly even to London.

What makes him truly terrible as a leader is his failure on the Eastern Front is that he acted against all the knowledge he had about an Invasion of Russian Territory. He studied the French Invasion under Napoleon and the prior German Invasions in World War One, and failed to devise a way to combat the Russians most basic tactic: Scorched Earth. The Russians, when outgunned, would always retreat and burn the land behind them, leaving no resources for their enemies to take. Without a way to resist the Scorched Earth policy, the Germans had no chance of winning.

Furthermore, he did create a strong, experienced army, but that army had to cover a 1,600 km front, the approx. distance from Leningrad to Stalingrad. This also would leave their supply lines exposed over thousands of kilometers of hostile, occupied land, and since the Russian employed Scorched Earth, there would be no local resources to depend on. Russia, the Soviet Union, it was simply too big to occupy, and history had proven that time and time again. Hitler failed to see this, and his people paid for his terrible leadership.

Palsm 93:1 ""the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." As the Sun rises and sets, and the Bible says the Earth does not move, then technically your right, it doesn't say the Sun revolves around the Earth, but it sure implies it.

Furthermore, you're also right that Galilio, a christian, did prove the Earth revolved around the Sun. And he spent 12 years of his life under house arrest for his discovery.

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

Anyway, the point I was trying to make, is that religion was a way for humans to have an answer for something they couldn't prove yet. Before Geometry or Astrology, we needed to know why the Sun set at night, and it was easier to say that the Sun was Helios as he rode his chariot of fire across the sky, then to admit we had no idea.

Agriculture made it possible, but religion is identified as one of the greatest factors in convincing Nomads to settle in the cities and create a sense of community. Take this excerpt about temples from Wikipedia's Uruk page (Uruk was one of the worlds first real cities):

"There are different interpretations about the purposes of the temples. However, it is generally believed they were a unifying feature of the city. It also seems clear that temples served both an important religious function and state function"

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

And when you say

"Secular humanists. And they don't blackmail in the process. Granted there aren't as many of them, but it could become a growing movement in a world where more people were motivated to do the right thing without religious lures."

I'd say thats true, there are many caring Secular humanists out there. But like you said, there are less Secular Humanists, and they are less organized. Can you name me one Secular, non-government agency that responds as quickly or as powerfully to a disaster as say, The Salvation Army? One of the first agencies to react to the 9/11 and the 2004 Tsunami, it spends millions of dollars a year to feed shelter and clothe the needy of all races and religions, despite being a hard-line Christian program.

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

The point is, wishing you could help is one thing, having the infrastructure to help is something else. religion still provides that basic infrastructure, and while I've seen some great secular charities, like Child's Play, they don't yet reach the scope of religious charities. Might Secular charities someday reach that level? Maybe, only time will tell. But right now, they don't even come close.

While not religious, I have come to view religion as an evolutionary device that has helped mankind get to where it is today.

Religion brings people together, and was instrumental in our transition from Nomads to City-Dwellers. A non-religious tribe might have trouble networking with other tribes, making a city more difficult to establish or keep.

Religious Ceremonies brought the community together, created a command structure for our first leaders, and were a place to socialize and meet new friends and even potential mates. Its fairly common for a member of a religious Youth Group to make a chastity promise, then break it with another member of the group that made the same promise!

Furthermore, religion was a great placeholder for science! I like to think this conversation happened once in Man's primitive times:

"Where did the Sun come from?"

'A man in the sky! Now lets to hunt so we can EAT"

Without religion to hold science's place, we might not have been able to cope with some of the more frightening aspects of this world, why do you think the most memorable gods from the past and present are Shiva the destroyer, Zeus the Lighting God, Osiris the God of the Afterlife? Man had a hard time with these issues, and still does.

Now that Science is catching up and pulling its own weight, you might say Religion is useless, as it tends to start more wars then it ends. I think religion gets a bad wrap though. Its used as an excuse more often then a valid reason. For example, Hezbollah doesn't really hate Israel because its Jewish. Hezbollah hates Israel because Israel is on the land Hezbollah wants. They CLAIM its because they're Jewish,and they're fighting a religious war, but since Jews and Muslims live together fairly peacefully in other regions, this can't be true. Its just that "We want to kill them for their land" doesn't sound so appealing to potential new recruits..

The truth is, religions still give tremendous amounts of money and food to those in need. I remember watching South Park, an early episode where Starvin' Marvin is running from the Christian Missionaries in Africa, because they want Marvin to read the Bible before they give him food his people desperately needs. While I admit that does sound like blackmail, really, who else was there, willing to dish out free food?

The Bottom Line is this: I think, overall, people are Decent. Not great, but slightly more caring then hating. This is true of both religious and non-religious people. However, I think religions are a better network resource then anything available to non-religious people, and that allows religious people to make a bigger impact on the world. And, over a long enough time line, I think all religions will do more good in the world then evil, and any tool that brings good into this world should stay. Even if its only slightly, its still worth having.

First, it's clear you made this debate then were the only one to comment, mostly likely because you didn't want to debate: You had already made up your mind on this issue. Second, HOMOSEXUALS should be allowed to serve.

Allowing Homosexuals to serve hasn't hurt the militaries of France, UK, Germany, Austria, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Columbia, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, Israel, or Russia. Some of those countries, like Russia and Israel, have seen combat since legally allowing Homosexuals to serve, and haven't reported it as an issue.

Furthermore, when the UK was considering banning Homosexuals from their military, they found that it would lower moral on the troops, and would expose the country to bribery from other nations spies (If you could lose your job by being outed as a Homosexual, you'd probably give the spies what they want, whether its true or not)

Homework should be banned High School and lower education because it is, honestly, useless.

1. The lack of the instructor is not their to supervise is very detrimental. The Internet has made it far too easy for students to cheat. They can look up the answers, plagiarize papers, or work together on assignment meant to be done individually via instant messaging.

2. High School homework leaves students unprepared for College. While not all high school students aim to continue their education, a respectable portion due, and homework leaves them ill-prepared. The switch from high school classes that take into account 30-40% of the final grade from homework to University classes where homework might only be 10-15% of the final grade, if present at all, is difficult.

------

With that said, there are two classes which should have a form of homework, as day to day understanding is more important to the focus of the entire class. Mathematics and Foreign Languages slowly add information over several weeks, and one bit of information tends to be essential to the next bit presented. Homework should be used in this situation, in a limited extent, to reveal where a student is having trouble, rather then as a major percent of the grade.