Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: torridon on June 24, 2017, 09:13:54 AM
-
On Wednesday, the head of the education ministry's curriculum board Alpaslan Durmuş announced that a section on Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution would be excluded from biology textbooks in the ninth grade (14 and 15 year olds) from next year on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40384471 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40384471)
-
On Wednesday, the head of the education ministry's curriculum board Alpaslan Durmuş announced that a section on Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution would be excluded from biology textbooks in the ninth grade (14 and 15 year olds) from next year on.
I'm not sure what's worse ....that, or the British governments exclusion of textbooks from schools which can no longer afford them.
-
I'm not sure what's worse ....that, or the British governments exclusion of textbooks from schools which can no longer afford them.
And the relevance of your assertion?
-
Dear Sane,
Telling 14 and 15 year old's they are to young to understand such a controversial subject like evolution :o Well I suppose it is nice to know that we are not the only country with a totally stupid government.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Telling 14 and 15 year old's they are to young to understand such a controversial subject like evolution :o Well I suppose it is nice to know that we are not the only country with a totally stupid government.
Gonnagle.
I have no love for the current UK govt, but they are irrelevant to this thread, unless the subject is what they argue on evolutionary teaching. Further given education is devolved the actions of the Tory govt in England are irrelevant to what happens on evolution teaching in Scotland.
-
On Wednesday, the head of the education ministry's curriculum board Alpaslan Durmuş announced that a section on Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution would be excluded from biology textbooks in the ninth grade (14 and 15 year olds) from next year on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40384471 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40384471)
the world is slowly being taken over by ignorant morons. (I cleaned that up before posting)
-
On seeing the subject heading for this thread, my first thought was "Oh, what a clever bird" but then realisation dawned.
This is, of course, a consequence of the islamicisation of a formerly secular state. Walter is massively wrong to ascribe this to ignorant morons - the government of Erdogan knows exactly what it is doing - alongside such activities as eliminating freedom of the press.
-
On seeing the subject heading for this thread, my first thought was "Oh, what a clever bird" but then realisation dawned.
This is, of course, a consequence of the islamicisation of a formerly secular state. Walter is massively wrong to ascribe this to ignorant morons - the government of Erdogan knows exactly what it is doing - alongside such activities as eliminating freedom of the press.
You sound as though you've just about got it right H H, it doesn't bode well for that part of our world at the mo, Atterturk must be having a turn around in his grave, assuming that's possible.
ippy
-
On seeing the subject heading for this thread, my first thought was "Oh, what a clever bird" but then realisation dawned.
This is, of course, a consequence of the islamicisation of a formerly secular state. Walter is massively wrong to ascribe this to ignorant morons - the government of Erdogan knows exactly what it is doing - alongside such activities as eliminating freedom of the press.
who the fuck do you think you are telling me I'm wrong? if you think I'm wrong , put the cap on and see if it fits ffs
-
who the fuck do you think you are telling me I'm wrong? if you think I'm wrong , put the cap on and see if it fits ffs
Would you kindly tell us all where it hurts?
-
It's worrying in that places seem to be getting more extreme.
I find it ominous that such a thing would be removed and it concerns me what is being taught in its place.
I'm all for teaching all sides of something, but at times it's like the dark ages are in danger of coming back.
I guess that's why it's best to aim for our society to be secular.
Even if sometimes I feel it comes across as being synonymous with anti religion.
-
There are some extreme Christians here in the UK who would love to see only the Biblical creation story taught in schools! ::)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-uW71-DHU
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-uW71-DHU
i like it :D
-
There are some extreme Christians here in the UK who would love to see only the Biblical creation story taught in schools! ::)
But not as many I would imagine as secular humanists who want religion and the religious out of politics.
-
But not as many I would imagine as secular humanists who want religion and the religious out of politics.
Ah yes ... the nameless, faceless ones.
"Imagine" clearly being le mot juste here.
-
But not as many I would imagine as secular humanists who want religion and the religious out of politics.
Religion should certainly be kept well out of politics as they don't mix.
-
Fallacy Boy,
But not as many I would imagine as secular humanists who want religion and the religious out of politics.
And the Fallacy Meister walks among us again. Praise be!
Can't decide yet whether to carve out from the tu quoque a sub-category for this whataboutism, but I'll get back you you on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
-
Fallacy Boy,
And the Fallacy Meister walks among us again. Praise be!
Can't decide yet whether to carve out from the tu quoque a sub-category for this whataboutism, but I'll get back you you on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Category F*****g Chap
The main action with regards this is Shakers suggestion that a claim that there are those here who think that politics should be free of religion is somehow a straw man argument.....now he has his answers.
-
Well, no, not really.
For a start we now have one person on the forum who thinks religion should be kept out of politics - hardly the mass shadowy conspiracy of secular humanists you keep alluding to. I'm confident that the Lords Spiritual are safe for a while longer on the strength of this.
Does Floo even identify as a secular humanist in any case? I for one have never heard her say. But was it Floo you were alluding to in your oft-repeated paranoid fantasies? Why couldn't you name Floo when asked for the name(s) (and corroborating statements) of someone who holds that opinion?
Poor attempt at playing catch-up, old fruit ;)
-
I suggest paganism should actively be brought into politics. Compulsory maypole dancing, VAT free purple tie dye and real ale and Arthur Pendragon for Home Secretary. What's not to like?
-
Gets my
goat of Mendes vote.
-
Well, no, not really.
For a start we now have one person on the forum who thinks religion should be kept out of politics - hardly the mass shadowy conspiracy of secular humanists you keep alluding to. I'm confident that the Lords Spiritual are safe for a while longer on the strength of this.
Does Floo even identify as a secular humanist in any case? I for one have never heard her say. But was it Floo you were alluding to in your oft-repeated paranoid fantasies? Why couldn't you name Floo when asked for the name(s) (and corroborating statements) of someone who holds that opinion?
Poor attempt at playing catch-up, old fruit ;)
I'd like to reply Shaker but I couldn't find a smug enough smiley emoji to express my feelings..........take the shame Shakes.
-
Funny how Christians like shame so much. It's possible to get help for it though.
-
Funny how Christians like shame so much. It's possible to get help for it though.
Surely the funnier (peculiar kind, not necessarily ha-ha kind) thing is why so many of them (self-described ones at any rate, and especially forum ones) are so keen on the equivalent of hitting themselves hard and repeatedly in the face with a ball-pein hammer and calling it not merely an argument or even a good point in an argument but victory.
Very odd indeed.
As for shame: Christianity has ever thrived on it. If you're so bad that God Himself tortured and killed Himself (albeit briefly) over how bad you inherently and intrinsically are - no matter what you've done or not done; no matter how old you are or indeed if you've just entered this great stage of fools ex utero - then a word like shame really doesn't even begin to cover the case.
But then, at the same time neither do words such as arrogance and egotism. That's why the late great Hitch was so right (he usually was, beautifully almost to the point of painfully so) to characterise Christianity as the maximum of servility coupled with the maximum of solipsism.
-
Well, no, not really.
For a start we now have one person on the forum who thinks religion should be kept out of politics - hardly the mass shadowy conspiracy of secular humanists you keep alluding to. I'm confident that the Lords Spiritual are safe for a while longer on the strength of this.
Does Floo even identify as a secular humanist in any case? I for one have never heard her say. But was it Floo you were alluding to in your oft-repeated paranoid fantasies? Why couldn't you name Floo when asked for the name(s) (and corroborating statements) of someone who holds that opinion?
Poor attempt at playing catch-up, old fruit ;)
I have never considered myself as a secular humanist, or anything else for that matter. I am just me, the mould was broken when I emerged! ;D
-
Certainly was floo.
N E way Turkey is reputed to be related to Triceratops.
-
I am most annoyed, here Chuck is seen as a local hero, and his mural is painted in a prominent place on our Market Square .
-
But not as many I would imagine as secular humanists who want religion and the religious out of politics.
Vlad you really do have trouble with understanding secularism, secular humanists don't want to see religion and the religious out of politics, just take a moment read the words I'm writing not the words you might be thinking I'm writing.
The way our parliament works being a believer in one religion or another doesn't ban anyone from office and you'll have a job finding any secular humanist that would want to see any such ban come into force but that is where religion should start and finish in polotics.
The secularists that I know of are trying to stop the various religions having any more influence than the above, which involves making various attempts to do away with the many privileges they have managed to acquire over the centuries, I E the most obvious one Bishops in the House of Lords, chancellery privileges, any kind of special place in our schools, taxpayers paying for chaplains in the forces, prisons and hospitals, the religious being in the forefront at the remembrance day ceremonies at the cenotaph where the humanists, non-religious are banned, on the BBC where the religious can express themselves freely more or less any time they like and the non-religious are unable to have the same freedom of choice, another one bussing children to a faith school free of charge and there's no equivalent bussing for non-religious parents to bus their children away from religious schools, admittedly this practice is being phased out but there are still a few continuing with this outrageous privilege.
The above is just a few of the privileges secularists are not looking for or expect to have and don't expect any one else to have either, it's called a level playing field Vlad, see if you can get it this time.
ippy
-
Vlad you really do have trouble with understanding secularism, secular humanists don't want to see religion and the religious out of politics, just take a moment read the words I'm writing not the words you might be thinking I'm writing.
The way our parliament works being a believer in one religion or another doesn't ban anyone from office and you'll have a job finding any secular humanist that would want to see any such ban come into force but that is where religion should start and finish in polotics.
The secularists that I know of are trying to stop the various religions having any more influence than the above, which involves making various attempts to do away with the many privileges they have managed to acquire over the centuries, I E the most obvious one Bishops in the House of Lords, chancellery privileges, any kind of special place in our schools, taxpayers paying for chaplains in the forces, prisons and hospitals, the religious being in the forefront at the remembrance day ceremonies at the cenotaph where the humanists, non-religious are banned, on the BBC where the religious can express themselves freely more or less any time they like and the non-religious are unable to have the same freedom of choice, another one bussing children to a faith school free of charge and there's no equivalent bussing for non-religious parents to bus their children away from religious schools, admittedly this practice is being phased out but there are still a few continuing with this outrageous privilege.
The above is just a few of the privileges secularists are not looking for or expect to have and don't expect any one else to have either, it's called a level playing field Vlad, see if you can get it this time.
ippy
The special place of the church in education is that much of British education is church establishment, likewise hospitals and welfare services. All of which secular authority seems to have an ambivalent attitude towards.
-
The special place of the church in education is that much of British education is church establishment, likewise hospitals and welfare services. All of which secular authority seems to have an ambivalent attitude towards.
"The special place of the church in education is that much of British education is church establishment", is a privilege.
"likewise hospitals" where the chaplaincy service is financed by the state, another privilege.
The secular authority you refer to is just that, secular, or in other words even handed, working on a level playing field where no one group or another, including secular humanists, have any form of special privilege.
Vlad what is it you find so difficult to understand about secularism?
ippy
-
"The special place of the church in education is that much of British education is church establishment", is a privilege.
"likewise hospitals" where the chaplaincy service is financed by the state, another privilege.
No....I mean the church set loads of them up.
The British secular state is ambivalent to education, Hospitals and social welfare. In 1945 Secularists wanted them. Up until 2015 the majority voted to have them cut back. I'm not averse to atheist or secular humanist chaplains in fairness but then I'm not Stalinist. If you start charging for services where do you stop?.....and that is how state education, health and welfare will eventually end. Well done.
When they are gone then religion will move to re-establish them. You can bet on that.
-
Fallacy Boy,
Category F*****g Chap
The main action with regards this is Shakers suggestion that a claim that there are those here who think that politics should be free of religion is somehow a straw man argument.....now he has his answers.
No it isn't. The thread is about Turkey removing the TofE from the curriculum of its secondary schools, and your raising of an entirely unrelated subject in response is called "whataboutism" - a type of tu quoque fallacy.
-
Fallacy Boy,
No it isn't. The thread is about Turkey removing the TofE from the curriculum of its secondary schools, and your raising of an entirely unrelated subject in response is called "whataboutism" - a type of tu quoque fallacy.
I'm sure you're right Blue but if someone can't understand something as simple and basic as the principles of secularism I don't think there's a lot of hope for the understanding of very much else either.
ippy