I disagree as there is nothing in western history to indicate that the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible stable government in fact it is somewhat the opposite.

The Greek, Egyptian and Roman empires were far from Judeo-Christian entities and they were highly organised, advanced and operated under an almost identical set of rules as todays civilisations in terms of laws and ethics etc.

Compare this with the post Roman period and "golden age" of church rule 500AD-1300AD and you see backward, poorly educated kingdoms, rife with disease and poverty merrily slaughtering each other.

From the 1400s onwards you have seen the decline of rule by clergy and once again you have strong, stable, educated and advanced western nations.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

A tolerant Judeo-Christian ethic is still the best bet.

I would argue that the "tolerant" aspect is the most important part of that statement as an intolerant Judeo-Christian ethic is just as bad any other intolerant religious ethic.


However these are my views on religion as a whole and have nothing to do with the question being asked by the original poster so how about a new thread to discuss this topic as I have no desire to derail this thread.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Greek, Egyptian and Roman empires

I hate to be such a party-pooper, but didn't all of those empires fall?

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo

I hate to be such a party-pooper, but didn't all of those empires fall?

Well the Greek and Egyptian Empires were over taken by the Roman Empire and technically the Roman Empire simply fell apart (Oddly enough when it adopted Christianity), my use of the Greek, Roman and Egyptian empires is simply to show that there is a period of roughly 5000 years where the western world was effective led by structured and organised societies not that dissimilar to todays.

But either way we are way off topic so maybe a new thread to avoid the same fate as the "Evolution" thread?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Probably because the rest of the western world got over religion and found the economy was a more believable method of controlling the masses.

I was simply responding to the above, a quote from you, of course, I would remind you.

As for your later posts on religion, which, having said your piece, you have then called off-topic, let me just confirm that I completely disagree with your empire assessments as simplistic and untrue.

However as you cannot avoid being offensive I will pass on your new thread, because to disagree with your important pronouncements would simply bring more personal abuse as usual.

You will therefore benefit from a clear field to air your steady flow of attacks on religion without fear of contradiction. You have before you what you and your like wish for - a onesided view from an unopposed and
inaccurate soap-box.

It is easy to sound good from that position. Get your mirror out, the stage is all yours.

And let me repeat in signing off, I completely oppose your views on this thread, but would have attempted to do so without giving offence. However, if I had then been faced with abuse, as usual, then you certainly would have heard from me in the same vein.

As for de-railing this thread, it always takes more than one remember, but never fear, you will hear no more from me on it, so you have achieved your aim.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Which two sides?

The Nordic Gods theory of creation? the Incan Gods theory of creation? the Wicca theory of creation? the Olympic Gods theory of creation? the Homer Simpson theory of creation? and about a zillion others that have no actual proof to back them up. Or we can just stick to the the most socially accepted and proven scientific fact and leave the religious debate for church.

****Dodges the bait****

Oddly enough this has become my focus of thought, what about the religions that have their own version of creation?
Surely if you are going to teach one version then you open the door to demands that all of them be taught, I think this is evolutions strong point in this discussion as it is non-denominational.

Personally I find it hard to believe that teachers are being fired for discussing creationism but I can see it happening for teaching it.

from being fired or losing tenure if they present alternate theories of origin that challenge evolution

Presenting "alternate theories" is neither teaching creationism nor is it NOT teaching the current curriculum of Darwin's theory.

The bill is designed as thus (as I read it):

If I have a .5-hour block of time to teach evolution in sciences, I can break that up - 15 minutes for Darwin's theory, then contrasting that to a 15-minute explanation of creationism. Or whatever allocation of time/teacher preference works.

That's healthy. I don't believe kids should be taught religion in public schools, but offering alternative views is healthy. Let the conversation turn the direction of the kids' questions. If they want to know more about this whole creation thing, teachers should NOT be afraid of being reprimanded or terminated for discussing it, whether it is their personal belief or not.

The entire purpose of learning is to LEARN. No one learns anything from a single point of view.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Who said - 'Religion is what keeps poor people from killing the government' ?

Actually i believe the saying is:"Religion is what keeps poor people from killing the rich" (but it's virtually the same anyway).

Seen on a bumper sticker:
"Sixty percent people waste their lives being atheists, the other thirty percent of people waste their lives being idiots, killing each other, to show who has the better God".

If a kid asks, the teacher shouldn't be bound by law not to answer.
If you need a disclaimer by law, for example, a requirement that the teacher say that this is what he/she believes or that this certain idea is out there, then FINE, but let educators do some damn educating.

And as I said Spike, the guys who kill each other and do not tolerate others because of a different faith obviously threw out the most important messages.
It's like a pacifist who kills a virgin every weekend.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

If a kid asks, the teacher shouldn't be bound by law not to answer.
If you need a disclaimer by law, for example, a requirement that the teacher say that this is what he/she believes or that this certain idea is out there, then FINE, but let educators do some damn educating.

And as I said Spike, the guys who kill each other and do not tolerate others because of a different faith obviously threw out the most important messages.
It's like a pacifist who kills a virgin every weekend.

Great post.

Originally Posted by AZ_Infantry

Presenting "alternate theories" is neither teaching creationism nor is it NOT teaching the current curriculum of Darwin's theory.

The bill is designed as thus (as I read it):

If I have a .5-hour block of time to teach evolution in sciences, I can break that up - 15 minutes for Darwin's theory, then contrasting that to a 15-minute explanation of creationism. Or whatever allocation of time/teacher preference works.

Does that work both ways?
Given that nothing about creationism is science why should science waste its time on it, it is not a science teachers role to teach Math or English yet they are both integral to the subject why should they spend time on creationism?

For the sake of argument should Evolution be taught in religious studies, will we see equal time being devoted to sex education when Adam and Eve are discussed, sex and inbreeding is after all relevant at this stage.

But seriously do you know how many mickey mouse half arsed theories would be cluttering our education system if this 15 minutes for and against style legislation was adopted?

That's healthy. I don't believe kids should be taught religion in public schools, but offering alternative views is healthy. Let the conversation turn the direction of the kids' questions. If they want to know more about this whole creation thing, teachers should NOT be afraid of being reprimanded or terminated for discussing it, whether it is their personal belief or not.

Fine but as a few people on these forums have mentioned rather than screwing up science classes why not add another class to the syllabus called "Religion studies" that teaches all about the various types of religions equally (its history, beliefs God or gods etc.).

The entire purpose of learning is to LEARN. No one learns anything from a single point of view.

Thats true and here is exactly the problem with this bill whats going to happen when your class room gets a kid that has a different belief set to that of creationism, say Paganism or I assume the Hindu have a different view on the matter etc. do they get equal time?

Originally Posted by senojekips

Actually i believe the saying is:"Religion is what keeps poor people from killing the rich" (but it's virtually the same anyway).

Seen on a bumper sticker:
"Sixty percent people waste their lives being atheists, the other thirty percent of people waste their lives being idiots, killing each other, to show who has the better God".

Bad Spike Bad...

Remember the old maxim "if it looks too good to be true it probably is." trust me it is easier to avoid getting hooked if you don't take the bait.