Eh, I think he was trying to make fun of (or simply express) what the pro-religion people are saying, although as a religious person myself, I don't think that schools must teach all religions, I think they should be offered as electives (I'm not sure if this is what FaZ actually meant or not).
Agreed, a homosexual should not have to write a paper denouncing homosexuality any more than a Christian should be forced to write a paper against monotheism (although I don't doubt that this occurs too, it is irrelevant).
Also agreed. Er, why exactly are we arguing?

I think it likely that the urine analysis test is only required to participate on the sports team, and not a government mandate.

Easier for you, yes, but as a society? Lack of education would wreak havoc in our society. Reading and writing, math skills, basic knowledge about our country, and physical education are all extremely important for the individuals in society to be taught. Can you imagine a United States without education? Undoubtedly if school were not required, millions would not go. How productive would those individuals be? While I typically take the side of the individual when it comes to the infringement of rights and freedoms by a government, this is one matter in which I take the opposite stance; requiring education is a necessary infringement of human rights, otherwise society would deteriorate due to a few reasons:
1). Lack of common knowledge.
If standardized education fails, it is left to parents to teach a child everything he or she needs to know in order to function correctly in society: voting ages, how to vote, drinking age, driving age, how the government works, how to read and write, mathematics, ect. Can you imagine working somewhere without being able to read and write? To be presented with a contract and not be able to read the terms and conditions?
2). Less capable work force
I hope everyone who reads this agrees with me: better education makes for a better work force. Common sense may be one of the most useful tools a worker can possess, but even then it can only get you so far.
3). Easier for corporations to take advantage
If people aren't taught their rights, and their rights are being infringed, who will stop big business?

One might argue "oh, well we could learn all this from other people", but as the number of educated people dwindles, so will the number of people learning from those educated people, and I'm sure you can see this is a slippery slope.

I think they should always force you to take the side of the issue that you don't agree with, in order to broaden your mind by making you consider alternative viewpoints.

Just clarifying about the student that spoke his beliefs about homosexuality. We were discussing why gays are just as good as we are, they are good people, and why we need to respect them. The teacher said that gay marriage is as normal as straight marriage. One student commented about how he felt it is abnormal to be gay, and was called out of the classroom and given several detentions (three, I believe). Syphon, I disagree with what you said. Take a moment to think. If we are taught by our parents, why have so many distinct cultures come to the same agreements, even when not in contact with each other? While every generation might be taught their beliefs by their parents, society's beliefs changed to be what they are today. Back a few thousand years ago, homosexuality was normal. However, every generation moved a tiny bit away from what their parents taught to what (I think) is human nature. Some other examples are cannibalism, human sacrifice, etc.

EDIT: O)CecilSunkure, I think that we should handle education the way the Europeans do. There is a government funded, extremely good school system where the best and the brightest go. Whoever doesn't make the cut goes to another government "trade school."

Vrael, I feel it is cruel to have a gay write a report against homosexuality. They are insulting themself.

Here's a quote for you to consider: "I'm not against fools, but foolishness" -Anonymous
Well, I feel it is fine for the schools to tell me to treat gays as equals, but not to tell me homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I'm not against homosexuals, but homosexuality.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 18 2009, 5:39 pm by Zxblqcktptyjsplkn.

This feels very discriminatory. You are not against the physical person but against their personality. Promoting this kind of inequality usually leads to hate crimes.

Also your quote feels like a fallacy because it can contradict itself as I can state "I am not against intelligent people but intelligence" as something comparable. (intelligent people have intelligence and fools have the quality of foolishness)

The problem isn't the education, its what's getting taught in the education. I don't know of any public school that has as well-educated kids coming out as from private and home schools. If they are going to educate people, they should do it well. That's not to say there aren't kids coming out of school with a good education, but far more come from private schools and home schools. The cirriculum for a 15 year old in a government school in NZ is the same and slightly lower than what my 13 year old brother is learning. And the only kids that get the full benefit are the ones that are intelligent or work hard. The geeks in other words. The thing is, my brother is more a jock than a geek, but he's learning at the same level as a 15 year old public schooled geek. That's messed up.

The quote says that the writer doesn't mind fools, but hates foolishness. He has no problem with the people. I have no problem with gays, but I have a problem with homosexuality. There is a difference. I actually have an openly gay acquaintance (I can't call him a friend), and we get along fine. However, I dislike the fact that he is gay, even though we get along fine.

From just this screams "I'm intolerant!"
He deserves it. That's basically just wanting to start a fight with people.
You're not understanding the point behind the whole neutrality. It's so they don't get sued and, after all, it is a PUBLIC school.

As for the rest, they aren't making it a hostile environment. They are keeping it open for other religious perspectives and beliefs. The only thing that makes it a hostile environment are the people who are intolerant of other people's beliefs and opinions.

They aren't telling you what to do at all. I have no idea where you got that from.

I am tolerant of the people, just not of their beliefs. They try to tell me that everyone's belief is fine. Read the thread. He was not trying to start a fight, just making a comment. Also, if the school completely ignores religion, that is hostile. If you have a "Winter Break," which is obviously a Christmas vacation, and you completely ignore Christmas, but sing all the "holiday" songs, isn't that hostile? They pretty much educate us to believe that everything must be completely secular, or it is wrong. You can't have a Christmas break but ignore Christmas. You can't give us Good Friday and the week after Easter off (it really should be Holy Week off, but w/e), and claim it is a "Spring Break" without being hostile to religion.

Basically, the schools take everything religious and sweep it under the rug. By ignoring it (I know they are trying to avoid being sued), they make it feel wrong. I'm also not saying they should cater to my beliefs, just acknowledge my right to hold them.

Quite simply, how is the school doing anything to prevent you from holding your specific beliefs?

Everything you've said is simply about equality and secularism. They might not sing Christmas songs, but they don't sing Hanukkah or Kwanzaa songs either.

I think that was his point. Some, nay, many people realize that secularism is not inherently good.
You completely missed what he was trying to say:
The way the school names their "breaks" implies to students that being open about religion is wrong (at least, according to him, and me. You can argue whether or not this is true all you want).

I would like to know the reason for why secularism is not good (and why you seem to be implying that misology and anti intellectualism is good)

In one sense (though not the sense I think Jesusfreak meant), it is not is not good because it is an infringement on our rights:

I draw upon what I said earlier in the topic as to how it is indirectly prohibiting the free excersize thereof: http://www.staredit.net/169526/

Secondly, do not put words in Jesusfreak's mouth.
If he implied it, show us your reasoning for how it was implied.
He will be held to what he said, not what you think he means.

Secularism is not good because it takes religion and takes the religion out of it. It celebrates Santa Claus, while ignoring Jesus. This is implying that Jesus is a less respectable belief than Santa Claus. If a child talks about Santa Claus in their kindergarten class, the teacher will think it is sweet. On the other hand, if the child talks about how Jesus was born, the teacher will ask them not to talk about religion in school. This will give the child an impression that Santa Claus is the right thing to believe in and Jesus is wrong.

The government will, especially in a warlike country like the USA (to be unbiased, its in Russia, China, England, etc as well), always try to influence public opinion to support the government in its ventures. It's really that simple. The education system teaches you about the wonders of equality of race and religion, and because humans want conflict, the media stupidly creates it by emphasizing the differences between the USA and other countries, most of which aren't as pro-equality as the US. There, you now proudly support the US in its ventures.

Should the government try to influence your thoughts on this topic? I believe so. In the end, the US's government strives to do what's best for its people, and while you may be indigant in that the education system wants you to be pro-gay (using the term for comic relief), everyone being on the same page on the issue is probably the best solution towards removing conflict around that issue and improving the general standard of living, if by a little bit. Do you lose your individuality? Sure. Could it be the wrong stance to take, as a growth in gay rate may result in a population growth stagnation, which could prove fatal to the US in some far-off conflict (meteor, arabs with nukes, whatever)? Sure. However, as long as people lack their prized individuality, there is much less possibility for conflict. It's good for society to have everyone thinking the same thing on these issues.

Myself, I'm rather intolerant, conservative, whatever. I think that the word marriage should stay between a man and a woman, and gays should get their own word. Actually, I wouldn't even be against outlawing public gayness. Or more extreme measures for which people will wag their fingers at me. Likewise, I think that religion should be outlawed, or at least made improper in public. I would prefer a unirace society to America's model. Shocking, innit? The largest share of my education was within the US, where equality and such is constantly praised by politicians, where study of the country's history is 50% about boring idiots who thought that their lives would be best spent for one cause or another. Obviously, the propaganda didn't really work. In conclusion, deal with it. Propaganda is good for society, it's not going to stop because your little ears start hurting when someone says something you don't like. Just ignore it.

I'm aware that this is a poorly structured post, but I'm rather out of shape. Haven't written that much in four weeks. At least that's my excuse. Maybe I'm just a bad writer. ;(

Here's the difference: Adults don't believe in Santa Claus.

You clearly have no idea what secularism is, 'cause that ain't it.

Secularism is the middle ground between Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and just about everything else. Can we agree on this for starters?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Secularism

Secularism is against everything else. With regard to schools, it is against any religious teachings in public schools.

Actually, if you look at the 2nd definition, it says that

That's what i meant by that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ", First Amendment, nice isn't it? Okay, the important stuff though "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Alot of people think that there is a "law" that is just called separation of church and state. Well, although once read it may seem to properly represent the first portion of the amendment, it is slightly misleading to those who haven't read it. People simply assume that the government has BANHAMM3RD religion in schools, i have a hunch that one of these people might be Zxblqcktptyjsplkn. The truth is, as the amendment clearly states, the government steps away from the issue and makes sure that religious beliefs will never interfere with the processes of our government, and that unlike medieval countries, our government may be independent of religion with no consequence.