h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Biased? Children are at the heart not at all biased until mature, adult beings teach them to be. If you take a bunch of children that do not speak eachothers language, they will not fight, but they will rather PLAY together. They are truly unbiased!

If they are taught from the start how that should be their attitude throughout the rest of their lives, regardless of their religious choices, and how all religions tend to agree on THAT point at least, I believe that should be beneficial to all.

It occurs to me that in a biased environment such as the US RE is exactly the thing that is needed. Or would you rather see things continue as they are now? What's wrong with trying to *do* something about it, something *fundamental*?

Ok, maybe it's true that only atheists and agnostics would be really qualified to give totally unbiased RE classes (although that's not my personal conviction), and maybe some religious leaders would not like that. But what do you expect them to do? Start killing us all? Most likely they are going to argue among themselves, ultimately destroying eachother, thereby freeing the world of their misguided views.

ofcourse you mean

http://www.h2g2.com/forumframe.cgi?forum=18878&thread=49015

A few things:

1) Sorry about posting mid-thread (sub-thread?) to whoever it was that was inconvenianced. I thought it kept conversations in manageble places, but I guess YMMV.

2) Good Pal T. Mummy: I really like the add now. Thank you for being so accomodating. It seems that I was the only one that had any beef with it, but then again, we where posting in the middle of the forum, so who knows if others knew our discussion was there to participate in.

3) re: RE. I think Religious Education would be a good thing in public schools. However I do have to agree with GargleBlaster, that in the United States, it is doubtful that the very vocal fundamentalists would use it as anything but platform for furthering their beleifs rather than accomplishing any kind of understanding of other beliefs, much less tolerance. Its a good idea, but at this point in American history, it would just blow up in our faces.

Those who are discontent with their current spiritual path (usually inherited from their parents) will eventually find another. It would be nice if they had a grounding in what other beleif systems are out there, but I am sure they will find something that will make them content... eventually... someday... perhaps.

The problem here is that what in the western world are minority religions do not have doctrines making it neccesary to prosleytize. Like a political campaign, its usually the guy with the big advertising budget that gets the attention. Christians are big on advertising. Can't think of any other religions that are even in the same league when it comes to that.

The Mummy- I would be most happy if we could teach children a class like RE here in the US. But, GB and everyone else who commented on this are right. Whoever teaches it will let their own beliefs bias it. There are teachers in the US now who prosleytize in their class rooms, even though they can get fired for it. These 'religious-right' people are truly incapable of seeing any other view except their own.

You don't live here, you don't see these people everyday. And I have it worse than a lot of other people here, because I live in the buckle of the bible belt. And these people really frighten me.

To good friend ZenMondo: I'm glad we could work things out in the end.
About you being the only one having any beef with it, don't worry. Maybe only few people really cared about it, or they just didn't see it, or they thought that you were saying all the things they were thinking

Anyway: even if you're the only one I could please with this gesture, then it was worth it

To anyone opposing me concerning the Religious Education issue: doesn't it bother you that the american people is that far off the track of tolerance? To me that would be a sign that of all people THEY needed some mandatory RE the most. But ok, I will not push it. I don't want to end up making enemies here (apart from the ones I already have, that is ).

You're not making enemies by disagreeing... if we wanted everyone to agree with us all the time, we'd be xtians.

You are correct in principle. The US is the most fundamentalist xtian country, and deperately needs this sort of thing. But when you look at the reality, it just wouldn't work. It would only end up promoting the same sort of thing we're trying to abolish. Make the kids take Western Civ, and they'll get enough religious learning that they'll be a bit more open minded. When challenging a people's core beliefs, you have to go about it in baby steps, or it ends up backfiring.

Ofcourse you are right, GB. Any american citizens here will have a much clearer view upon how mandatory unbiased RE-classes (if it would be possible) would in reality influence most people than I have. That's something I will not deny.

Yet it still strikes me as a frustrating fact that this is the case. I can't help but thinking of how things may end if they continue to develop like they have done over the past couple of decades. On a planetary scale the peoples of this world are slowly beginning to realize that we need to be more resposible and tolerant, and how stupid it is to make war. But on a local national scale things are slowly going out of control and we are losing our dignity. The US isn't the only place where this can be seen, ofcourse, but it is the most prominent example as a result of it's massive population and ofcourse the fact that most trends are first seen in the US.

Will we soon have world-peace, only to find man fighting his brethren at home and in the streets? Will we annihilate ourselves and eachother despite all our good intentions?

Sorry, Patriarch... completely forgot to answer your question *Bad GB! Bad!*

Check out the page for the FFFF to see examples of how everyone else has named their chairs. It's mostly just a bit of sanctioned silliness to offset the seriousness of some of these forums.

In all likelyhood.

The US was the home of the pilgrims; religious puritans. They came here to be free from what they saw as persecution for their strong religious beliefs.

The First Ammendment grants the freedom of religion, speech, and various other group activities. The US continues to be a place where people can, for the most part, escape religious persecution, as well as find a willing flock of participants for co-belief in their superstition. The First Ammendment is also the only thing that protects those of us who have no religion from those that do; and very tennatively, since our legeslators are primarily (like our population) devout people. Fortunately, we have a precedence set by the First Ammendment.

Religious Fundamentalists have frequently backed up their cause with the use of force. An anti-abortion fundamentalist murdered Dr. Slepian near his Amherst (near Buffalo, NY, US) home, within sight of his family, because of a religious belief. To bad that in the support of his [the beliver's] faith, he broke that same tennent.

Need I go into more detail? There are any number of things that Fundamentalist will do in pursuit of a universal belief structure; their own. Some do not recognize any Earthly authority before their God, believing they will be vindicated upon thier demise. I do not have that luxury; I believe in the authority of society as a whole. No God will justify my arguement, nor will a primarily religious society. Religious practices will continue to be taught in school, despite legeslation to the contrary. Bias will continue to show through as well. To remove the laws that protect Fundamentalist would remove the laws that protect us. We must hope that people can rationalize, and recognize that Societies authority, however imperfect, is here now, and apparently giving us more dirrection than any God ever has.

-jb

Oops. precident. Society's. Various other things.

-jb

Hi jb,

Hehehe, when I saw you mention the First Amendment, I was already out to get you... but then you took the words right out of my mouth!

Indeed, the First Amendment is intended to protect people from prosecution, but some of the arguments in this discussion (especially the ones against mandatory RE-classes in the US) clearly prove that it doesn't work. Xtian fundamentalists who find the First Amendment to be in their way (it doesn't allow them to eradicate other beliefs legally) will simply terrorise or kill their opponents, and just like Xtians did in the middle ages, claim to have operated in the best interest of all humans, on behalf of xtianity and their god.

And then comes the icky part: when they are attacked, they simply hide behind that same First Amendment (which they already have violated themselves), claiming that they have the right to follow their belief, free from prosecution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that once a person has violated any kind of agreement for their own purposes, they should not be allowed to hide behind that same agreement to protect themselves from judgement for their deeds. In this case the First Amendment is that agreement.
(Of course, I must add that as a non-american, maybe I do not feel the importance of the First Amendment as deeply as true US-citizens, but that also allows me to look at its 'flaws' objectively.)

Furthermore, I don't see how the First Amendment would forbid mandatory RE, provided such classes do really cover all religions available. After all, even the xtian religions would get their place in the teachings. Ok, maybe it would be impossible to prevent any bias from creeping in, but the pupils would still be alerted to the fact that there's much more than xtianity alone. If they are true inquisitive beings, they will seek out unbiased sources of information eventually, and find that not all is as they were taught.

Surely one would have to be cautious about it, I acknowledge that. But at some point a start MUST be made, and is there any time better than the present to start doing it? History can't be changed, though it can be presented to look different, but the future depends on how we act NOW.

(hear the activist speak )

The first time anyone would try to teach RE in public school in America, the Fundamentalists would cry foul. Much the same as Atheists and Agnostics are crying foul at Kansas's attempt to teach Creation Science as a fact.

I'm not willing to allow a right-wing congress access to the freedoms I'm entitled to as an American citizen. At the first sign of the removal of my freedoms, I plan to become Canadian. I've even been practicing, eh?

(no offense to our Canadian members)


The First Ammendment protects individuals, as well as groups. The individuals who perpetrate crimes in the name of religion are quickly renounced by the other followers of the religion, with a quick wink of support. They were 'confused'.

This doesn't mean these rights are removed from the group, or should be.

The First Ammendment wouldn't forbid manditory RE, but the Fundamentalists would hang it up in litigation for years. Since they are in (relative) power, they would never come up with the idea themselves, nor would they approve it. It might make them look bad.

Most Americans do not raise their children to be objective or inquisitive. Many Americans do not raise their children.

-jb

Dear jb,

I bow before you courteously, admitting defeat. I simply have no arguments to counter you here

The First Amendment is too deeply felt and respected by US-citizens to be looked upon objectively even when it is abused, and non-americans will hardly be able to understand how important it is. That's a fundamental difference that will remain until the FA is either abandoned by the US or accepted as a fundamental law globally.

Let's simply drop this matter, and agree to differ

lol

FA's supposed to protect minority viewpoints from outright censorship and abuse by the govt. That's all it is. Everyone here has access to it, so even majority viewpoints are protected. Which is the way it has to be for balance (take it away from one group, who's to say you can't take it away from all groups?). Hopefully, our govt. will remember to butt out of our religious/non-religious practices, and enforce the law that separated church and state over 200 years ago, and not kow-tow to the religious right. If we weren't on such a right-wing swing right now, I would support RE/Western Culture studies. These are things I study myself, outside institutions.

Ah, shoot. I was getting into it. Allright, dropped.

-jb

I enjoyed this whole discussion as well, you know? However, there are fundamental cultural differences that will always divide certain people at a specific point, beyond which any argument is just deemed to run around in circles. One such a difference is encountered here, and we must accept that it can't be overcome anytime soon.

(I should also honestly admit that at a certain point I just don't know the words to correctly express my feelings in english without the risk of inadvertently offending someone.)

We may never forget, however, that at a lot of points we can still advance our own viewpoints, learning from each other.

A bit late, I know, but...
Surely, in principle, everybody should have RE education so that they can make an informed choice. The problem that everyone has so rightly pointed out is that it would be difficult to find anybody to present balanced arguments. After all, we can't even do that in science teaching, so how can we expect to do it with something as close to the heart as religion?
Religion is something everybody needs. Atheism is also a religion. I suppose Darwinism could almost be classed as one as well. Nobody can totally explain the world. There are always gaps. These gaps require faith, whether in a God or in a science. My personal faith is in science. Just because we can't explain everything (and what a boring place the world would be if we could), does not mean that we will never be able to. Having said that, despite everything I have learnt, I could not prove that God does not exist (at least, not without a Babel Fish). I am not so arrogant that I believe all religion is nonesense. If we don't keep an open mind, we are as bad as those indoctrinating fools everyone is talking about.
Anyway, that's my personal opinion. Everbody finds their faith in something different. Without learning about all the major world religions, Darwinism, atheism, agnosticism etc, how can anyone decide which they believe in? It seems to me that it is all too easy these days to dismiss things that require too much though as rubbish. Maybe we all need to think a bit more.

Cheers for the info GB. I'll check it out.

PS: GB, call me Professor of Limitless Darwinism

I hope you don't mind my saying, but you seem not to have been paying attention. Atheism is NOT a religion. And anyone who thinks that gods non-existence is just as impossible to prove as his existence, surely is not an atheist. Your personal opinion regarding god is fine by me, but your opinion on atheism needs work.

Anything else you said can be summarily dismissed as rubbish

In fact, you may find that many atheists will feel insulted by your remark that atheism would be a religion. Surely that's not how you intend to start your membership here, now is it?

Oh no....not again Deja Vu?