The how-to guide to offending the Left

Post Reply New Topic

If they are going to espouse atheist teachings(concepts if you prefer, or view-point if that still offends) in public schools they should acknowledge its philosophical counter part, at least. This would not be promoting a religion it would just be teaching the historical by play of the two. This type of thing would have to be heavily regulated to avoid religious creep, and that in itself might skewer students towards one viewpoint over another.

If students are interested in learning about religion, they can go to church, or read about it on the internet. The only thing school should teach about religion is an unbiased historical viewpoint from the earliest religions to the present day, that doesn't delve into which one is better or any of that nonsense. And science classes should continue to exclude Creationism and Intelligent Design, because simply put, those are not scientific .

That isn't what I'm talking about, I am talking about a class which delves into the conflict of theist philosophy and atheist philosophy, it separates the issue from religion. Its the only configuration that could cover anything resembling religion or atheism without becoming political. The only problem I could see is getting politicians to understand it and finding teachers who can actually teach it and answer questions in something resembling a neutral way. Now that I think about it my solution might not be fit for the current system.

Your systems impartiality portion would be hard to maintain if it goes into public schooling, which is what I am discussing.(not college/university level.)

There certainly seem to be atheist ideologies. But that does not mean that an atheist is necessarily attached to these ideologies. If one looks at something like the atheist federation of Australia one can find many policies, that if enacted, would be borderline totalitarian. Such as restrictions on what you can teach your children about religion and the conversion of Churchs to 'other' uses.

There also seems to be a link (though not a necessary link) between being an atheist and holding some political positions. For example the AFA supports abortion and euthanasia and it's members campaign for the same. While one does not have to hold these views and some certainly don't; there does seem to be a link.

The British Humanist Association fills a similar role in the UK. They support abortion, euthanasia, restrictions on halal and kosher animal slaughter and government approved curriculum for religious schools (and humanist values in hiring workers). Both organizations are supported by the senior 'New Atheists, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett. So while one can argue that there is no atheist ideology, there seems to be a link between being an atheist and holding certain views.

Or one can point out the violence of leftists:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/23/v ... with-sign/

... ok, why are lynching, skinheads, and the KKK listed as right wing?

AcCountable topic

Last time I looked, and counted, the word "welfare" had seven letters.

Or perhaps is there a subtle hint that welfare itself is over extended?

...and the word "multiculturalism." The one in Canada works, the one in the UK does not. Not every concept is transferable. You people in the UK will have to find your own way.

Like many people who lean toward the left,( I am actually centrist) I do not belong to a discernable group or political party. My atheism came about after a lot of self searching and so evolved. It was not a sudden decision, but was done after a lot of self criticism and research, and very individualized. I have never formally belonged to any group or movement except for a brief stint in a unitarian type religious organization a very long time ago, and in another thread, I explained how being in such an environment helped me to understand that atheism is my own choosing and so I was able to move on.