Schools have changed

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I must take issue with anything that 'disses the totem pole.

[Mark&Steph 0]

I must take issue with anything that 'disses the totem pole.

And you'd be right to.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

We push God far away. Then it becomes hard for us to seek Him. Then we regret the times he wasn't with us.

Saludos,

Caro

[jundp 191]

1. The separation of Church and State only means that the government can't rule or force one religion on the people.

2. I grew up in Louisiana and we prayed before every football game. I went to a public school. No one cared.

3. I seriously doubt a 15 year old wrote that.

4. But I agree with some of it, and this is why I teach in a private, faith-based high school.

5. Whether or not human rights is solely derived from faith or religion, most religions have a basis in social justice and human rights. If they don't, they're hypocrits.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Who killed God?

Was it the Jews? Or the ACLU? Or maybe it was Harry Potter.

My money is on the Potter kid.

[pedroh 21]

harry potter es el diablo!

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Who killed God?

Was it the Jews? Or the ACLU? Or maybe it was Harry Potter.

My money is on the Potter kid.

We ignore the vampiric totem poles to our own detriment.

[DeadPoolX 9]

As far as I can see, Gary was only talking about (and for) himself. He's stated as much many times over. He believes that religion and human rights can work hand-in-hand. That's fine. It's his belief and none of us have unequivocal right to take that belief away from him, either. However, PH also has the right to believe that human rights are not a product of (or at least, are not consistent with) religion. That's her belief, and just like we can't take Gary's belief system away, we cannot take PH's belief system away.

So there's really no point in arguing the matter. Neither side will agree, since the debate isn't based on factual data, but on opinion. You can't prove that opinion is either right or wrong -- it just exists due to someone's own ideals. Unless one party is willing to change those ideals (and very few people are), this argument will go nowhere and do nothing.

Edited February 28, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Noone's suggested taking anyone's belief system away. You've said that before, in other threads and I'm not sure where you're getting it from.

Sheesh all this over a silly cynical poem that deals in "its all the liberals fault" stereotypes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Human rights are not a belief system.

[Peikko 1,575]

I didn't make any claim about how the declaration of human rights was conceived, what it's origins may or may not be. I am making the claim that religion is not relevant to the declaration of human rights. These two things are completely seperate and not interchangeable.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry, but my mind boggles at the thought that this can be so easily be misunderstood. Human rights are so valuable as a concept and yet very few seem to understand what it means, still less cherish what it stands for.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"Belief system". Hmm.

Gravity isn't a belief system because it's demonstrably real. Part of our physical world.

The earth isn't flat. Not a belief system because it's demonstrably real. Also part of our physical world.

God exists. Can't be demonstrated. Can't be observed. Relies on faith to be true. Clearly, a belief and not a fact.

The US constitution. It does exist. That's fact. That's not a belief. But how about the statement "The us constitution is good". Fact or belief? Belief, I'd say.

Human rights. We believe humans have rights. We aspire to it. Can it be observed or demonstrated?

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, because there is a declaration of what they are, just like a constitution. They exist in the same way. They exist but whether it is a good or a bad thing is indeed a matter of opinion.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Fair enough. The declaration exists. That is fact.