Propaganda Poster: Don't Take God Out of Schools
Thursday May 15, 2008
A popular myth for the Christian Right is the idea that atheists forced God, prayer, and Bible reading out of public schools, leading to social, moral, and educational disasters which continue to plague America. By promoting such beliefs, the Christian Right encourages people to think that atheists are a threat to both religious liberty as well as social order, that America is worse off than it once was, and that proper Christianity is the solution to everything troubling us.
Read Article: Don't Take God Out of Schools
Comments
Don’t take god out of schools: he hasn’t learned any science yet!:)
science explains it all huh?….yeah. how stupid are you people? people want to believe in all these differnet things like the “big bang” or scientolgy (however u spell it)people will find every reason not to believe in God. One day they will so find out. I am not here to agrue with anyone although I am really good at it but I pray for all of you that dont believe in our savior Jesus Christ. But Im sure your science has proof for every single item on this Earth.The sea’s, the wind you cant see but know its there, the love you feel for somebody you cannot see but you know its there. why is it so hard to believe in our maker and what he has done for us? what he went through for us to forgive us for our sins? do you think that when we die that is just it we die? no, we have souls, we have that inner voice in us. some say we are all born pure-that is not true we are born into sin because of Adam and Eve. But I suppose all you high tech scientist are right being you have your big degrees an astroid came down and formed this or that and we came from some blog slob crap from the ocean or better yet we came from apes….that would make the most sense being there are still apes on this earth that have not yet turned into human. I feel so sorry for your souls. I dont care what anyone says or thinks about me or my blog because one person alone will judge me and that is God. Im far from perfect, def, no angel but I know where I am going when I die. And dying does not scare me, I think what scares me most is what I am leaving behind, my family, my pets, my friends. But in my heart I know we will all be together again. I dont care who bashes me. I LOVE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!
Troll Rating: 4/10
i hope you’re trolling, if not… *shudder*.
“we came from some blog slob crap from the ocean …”
What are you, like, two years old there?
I propose the Blog Slob Crap Law of Creationism. As comprehension of evolutionary science approaches zero, the probability of writing an unintentionally humorous and scatological characterization of evolution approaches one.
Fundamentalism explains it all. And that is the problem None of the explanations have any respect for facts or ideas.
He’s probably the Generation 2 Sureshot.
The
Generation 1 Sureshot wouldn’t say anything so stupid.
Just glad he didn’t want to “agrue” the whole apes that haven’t yet turned into humans issue! Whew! ‘Cause he’s really good at it and all.
To prove that you can always learn something, I now know what the hell a “Sureshot” is, thanks for the link Mark.
Boy! SureShot sure told us! He sure knows his dogma!
Big Bang or Scientology? Huh?
I’ve said it before nevertheless I’ll repeat it.
Ignorance and lack of education are the requisites for a fundamentalist believer.
Sure Shot is the epitome of that observation.
It is easy enough to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a God.
After seven decades I have never once seen any verifiable evidence for the existence of such a being, ergo the absence of proof of a positive indicates the a higher probability of the negative.
Sureshot….WOW! That was entertaining. I truly do forget how ignorant, and just plain dumb some Christians can be. I LOVED the part where you put Big Bang, Scientology(which is a religion), and Godlessness in the same sentence. Might be a good idea that you educate yourself about all three before you spout your bullshit. While your at it, maybe you could do with a lesson in grammar and sentence structure. Or is it just a prerequisite for Conservative, Right Wing, Christian jerk off’s to sound like an idiot?
A quick lesson in Evolution wouldn’t go amiss for you. Then you would learn that Evolution disproves Adam and Eve. Educate yourself on that and this will make sense.
Evolution Disproves Adam and Eve,
No Adam and Eve, no Original Sin,
No Original Sin, no need for Salvation,
No need for Salvation, no need for a Savior.
“I am not here to agrue with anyone although I am really good at”
I think he did a better job of proving the existence of god than he did at proving this statement.
I think we have a case here for devolution: Sureshot appears to be a human turning into an ape.
Paul,
Attacking “Sureshot” instead of his argument is non productive. As the message he sent is
indicative of a lack of learning and understanding, it is pointless to point out his personal deficiencies to reinforce the observation. Forbearance is seen as a “Christian” virtue. Feel sympathy for the man, if not for his ridiculous assertions.
On behalf of the lower primates, who cannot speak for themselves, I also protest that the correlation between the Simian specie and “Sureshot” is denigration, in extemis.
The question for thr right should not be “how to get God back in the schools” but how to “get God back into the teachers”. Everyone knows Christianity is a caring religion. Chiristians have started mor than 10 to 1 more help organizations than the selfish atheist. The lasting results have been 10 to 1 beter than gdless orgs. And Christians give to good causes more than 10 to 1.
The bottomline is on this argument; there are too many atheist teachers and ed. administraters.
What gets me is that teachers make their living off of available students and then they are prodominately for abortion. Atheist are not logical.
Jerry. The way you write it isn’t Christian Teachers you require but a proper Teacher.
This is so typical of Fundies.
Oh yes Christians care. History is replete with examples of Christian love. Crusades, Inquisitions, Salem Witches, attacks,driven by Presidents talking with God, on Muslims.
Nazi Catholics against Jews. Or even Fascist Jews against Palestinian Muslims.
Dick Smith, in my country, is the greatest individual philanthropist. He is a member of Australian Skeptics. That organisation alone gives thousands every year to scholarships and
worthy causes. We just don’t make a song and dance about it. Your own(and our) American Civil Liberties Union contributes towards righting the wrongs of the American apology for a legal system. Philanthropy comes in many guises. One big difference, unlike some “Religious” groups. They don’t require you to say prayers before you can have some of their largesse.
I wonder if Terry is as unlikely to return as “Sureshot” is?
Terry, you have written:
“The question for thr right should not be “how to get God back in the schools” but how to “get God back into the teachers”.
No Terry, the question is: how can we ensure that teachers teach children HOW to think, not WHAT to think? This is not about left/right, it is about right/wrong. We can start by having every teacher concentrate on their job (teaching), by remembering how teaching differs from ‘indoctrinating’. The other thing we need teachers to do is to leave religious instruction to parents. There is no one view of “God”, which is why even religious people shouldn’t want their children’s teachers imposing the teacher’s version of god-belief on their children. Just imagine how you’d feel if your children had manditory Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish teachings everyday in class, and maybe you’ll figure out why religious indoctrination of any kind from teachers is not desirable. You want religious indoctrination for your children, then provide it yourself, so you can control which type they get; and I will do the same for my children.
“Everyone knows Christianity is a caring religion.”
No, actually, many people disagree with you on that. I am personally well aware that Christianity is a hateful and evil religion. So is Islam. So is Judaism, which they are both merely later versions of. Hinduism is also hateful and ridiculous, and even religions like Shintoism and Confucianism have to take the blame for some pretty hateful and negative teachings. There is nothing positive that only religions can offer, but there is much that is harmful that only religions can offer.
“Chiristians have started mor than 10 to 1 more help organizations than the selfish atheist. The lasting results have been 10 to 1 beter than gdless orgs. And Christians give to good causes more than 10 to 1.”
And 7 out of 10 statistics are made up.
Almost all the big charities I can name are atheist: The United Way; The various arms of the United Nations like UNICEF; The International Red Cross; Doctors Without Borders; service clubs like Kiwanis, Rotary, Kinsmen, etc; the world’s two biggest philanthropists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, etc. I can’t name any large theistic charities off the top of my head. And of course, religious charities waste much of their money spreading religion rather than doing real charity.
However, this is beside the point, because people give to others largely based upon their ability to do so, and their personal ethics, neither of which are determined by belief in any gods. If people do good deeds for others it is not because they are religious, it is because they are good people.
When religious people give to charity, they frequently want to advertise their religious beliefs, or promote their religion, or brown-nose their way into the afterlife by bribing their god. When atheists give to charity, they are actually doing so solely to help others, with no thought of self-gain or self-promotion. Which set of motivations is truly more charitable? I love it when religious people like yourself bring up examples that actually undermine your own position.
“What gets me is that teachers make their living off of available students and then they are prodominately for abortion. Atheist are not logical.”
I’ll assume you are American, from what you write. Therefore, your assumption that most teachers where you live are atheists is a ridiculous one, since the majority of Americans are Christians. So what you are objecting to is a system of education which is secular rather than theocratic. Perhaps you should learn the differences between a secular state and a theocratic one before you start wishing so hard for a theocracy. Here’s a little hint though: all the worst socieities in the world are theocracies, and all the best socities in the world are the most secular.
“Atheist are not logical”. Well, it’s possible to be atheist and not logical on some topics. I think we all have the ability to be irrational some of the time. But anyone who is atheist has demonstrated the ability to employ logic, rather than superstition, on one of the most important questions in our society - whether or not evidence exists for all the various gods people have claimed to have been contacted by.
all the worst socieities in the world are theocracies, and all the best socities in the world are the most secular.
I disagree. What about North Korea? North Korea’s a pretty secular society and I would have to say that that’s one of the world’s worst societies, what with mass starvation, brutal silencing of political opposition, gross human rights violations, etc.
atheist Dave.
Get your facts right mate. North Korea does have a Government that discourages traditional religions , preferring their populace to believe in the Party Line religion. The fact remains that the traditional Chondoist religion and Buddhism are still followed by many. Yes technically it is “Secular.” So is the U S A.
If you want to find worse countries than North Korea just visit Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
(Islam) Ethiopia (Christian) If you wish to experience prejudice try being an atheist, or for that matter a Muslim, in the U S A’s Bible Belt. Come to think of it, being a Catholic might be a bit tough in some of the Appalachian communities.
It seems you don’t understand what constitutes a Secular Country. For your information you actually live in one. It is a country that has no “Official” religion.
A “Theocratic ” one not only has an “Official” religion but also allows it to have input in the Government of the country.In some circumstances the WHOLE running of the country.
Britain used to be one. It still has an official religion but as the “Church” no longer has automatic entrance into the Upper House, nor official input in governance Britain can hardly be called theocratic. Especially as it has the highest number of non believers in Europe, probably the world.
Mind you. By law the Head of State MUST be a member of the Church of England. Actually She/He is the head of that Church.
Most western European/Scandinavian countries have no recognised affiliation with a religion and are generally considered “Secular”. As they all have a superior system and standard of living in comparison to those countries considered theocratic I feel Drew’s observation stands. Most Islamic countries are theocratic and even the moderate ones have heavy religious influences. Many Christian countries e.g. South American are not technically “Theocracies” but are so heavily influenced by the Church they may just as well be. Wherever Religion rears its ugly head you will find a lower standard of living and particularly education.
Secularism does not guarantee it is going to lead to a better life and in this I slightly disagree with Drew. What is correct is that no matter where you look, when religion has diminished a superior system prevails.
Wherever religion predominates then a diminished standard of education and living standards are the norm. I do not know of one Theocratic country that has a superior social and educational standard to a secular one.
Your final sentence could equally apply to the U S A. Admittedly mostly it would be applied to foreigners but when you are on the receiving end who cares about the nationality of the persecutors.??
North Korea does have a Government that discourages traditional religions , preferring their populace to believe in the Party Line religion.
You’re not the first person I’ve seen imply or contend that communism is a religion. I personally don’t buy that contention, however. I think at best it qualifies as a pseudo-religion.
If you want to find worse countries than North Korea just visit Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
(Islam) Ethiopia (Christian)
I agree that they’re pretty awful, but are they really worse than North Korea? Granted, Sudan is worse, but are the other two
really worse?
It seems you don’t understand what constitutes a Secular Country. For your information you actually live in one.
Yes, I do understand, albeit roughly, what constitutes a secular country and no, I don’t live in one - at least not technically (I’m British, not American).
It is a country that has no “Official” religion.
I know, and N.Korea qualifies, as you appear to have conceded.
A “Theocratic ” one not only has an “Official” religion but also allows it to have input in the Government of the country.In some circumstances the WHOLE running of the country.
I know.
What is correct is that no matter where you look, when religion has diminished a superior system prevails.
I would agree that there is a tendency for higher education standards to prevail where levels of religiosity are lower, but is it really true wherever one looks? I don’t think so.
Wherever religion predominates then a diminished standard of education and living standards are the norm.
I agree that this is the norm. I disagree that there is a 100% negative correlation between religiosity on the one hand and living standards generally and education in particular on the other.
Your final sentence could equally apply to the U S A. Admittedly mostly it would be applied to foreigners but when you are on the receiving end who cares about the nationality of the persecutors.??
Is the situation of foreigners in the U.S.A really comparable to that of if the North Korean populace? I somewhat doubt it.
Damn it! I mistakenly put that last quotation from Tom Edgar in bold instead of italicising it.
So you have the misfortune to still be a Pom.
Accept my heartfelt sympathy. But it is still better than having the nationality over the “Pond”.
I’ll concede that it some areas of the U S A it could be better than living in North Korea. I do have relatives living in Cal.,
I would point out that they are white, Anglo Saxon, Medical Professionals. Enjoy a little of the good life. Situation could be a bit different if they were Hispanic or Black in Missouri, Louisiana, Texas. The areas in which I have, in the distant past, had experience.
I would point out that the question is very hypothetical, I know of no “Foreigners” either wishing to visit or to reside in North Korea, certainly not me.
I have actually been to Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. I can assure you that, then at least, the standards for the general populace
were pretty low and from others I know and the general information available the attitudes to foreigners is every bit as bad as the deep south of the U S A towards their coloured population fifty years ago, and this to those of the Islamic faith but not of the superior Arabian nationality.
You do not have to leave the U S A to find the correlation between poor education and religiosity. The Bible Belt is in stark contrast to the New England States and there is a corresponding situation all over the 50 States.
The U K along with Australia, New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries lead the world in being in the upper half of the world’s average education levels. The U S A has slipped from, eighteenth and the latest figures didn’t include it in the twenty five countries counted. Finland remains No 1. Australian and New Zealand have slipped from 2nd and 3rd as has Britain who used to be seventh. Only because, I venture to think, because of the mass immigration from countries with high religiosity and low educational levels, lowering the averages.
I rather like the tale of the then Prime Minister of N Z Piggy Muldoon when he was confronted by P M Hawke with the remarks that only 4,000 Australians lived in New Zealand whilst 240,000 Kiwis had migrated to Oz.
“That should raise the intelligence levels of both countries then.”
Now I don’t know if you deliberately misinterpreted my remarks, so kindly placed in bold letters, even if unintentional.
I wasn’t inferring attitudes to foreigners within the U S A. The thrust was to the arrogant attitudes and violence perpetrated by America and others in Iraq, Diego Garcia, etc.
Whilst you acknowledge Britain,technically, is not secular and is in theory a theocratic
nation it actually has less religiosity than virtually any nation on earth. It is not even a democracy, (neither is anywhere else), being designated a Parliamentary Monarchy.
Finally you ask is it true of all the nations
that there is a higher education level where there is a lower religious affiliation. Whilst I have, in the past, travelled to many countries, I don’t claim to know a great deal about all or even most of them. After over eighty years on this planet I can assure you that I have yet to see the reverse.
In closing I give you this experience I had in India many years ago when I made a friendship with a Hindu, University educated businessman who said. “All of India’s woes and troubles can be attributed to the reduction in religious standards. No longer are they giving the Cow the reverence to which it is entitled. Until the Cow is placed back in its rightful place we will not advance.” You don’t have to be dumb or be a fundamentalist Christian Bible Belt Baptist. Just believe in the unbelievable.
Now I don’t know if you deliberately misinterpreted my remarks, so kindly placed in bold letters, even if unintentional.
I wasn’t inferring attitudes to foreigners within the U S A. The thrust was to the arrogant attitudes and violence perpetrated by America and others in Iraq, Diego Garcia, etc.
Oh, you were talking about the behaviour of American troops abroad toward the native populations of the places that they’ve invaded. My bad. My apologies to you for misinterpreting you, and, to answer your question, no it wasn’t deliberate.
Hi Atheist Dave.
Of course North Korea is a theocracy. The state religion is worship of a dead leader, who is still technically the head of state. The current leader is also deified and worshipped. Just because the state religion of North Korea has been made up within living memory (like, say Scientology, or you could even say Mormonism) and doesn’t extend back to pre-literate times like Hinduism or Judaism doesn’t bar it from being called a religion.
Communism isn’t necessarily a religion, but some communist governments have certainly constructed one. I’d say that some of the European and Asian communist states did so, in contrast to Latin American communist states which have not (that I’m aware of).
What are the elements of a religion? Belief in a holy or magical figure (god) of some type. Rituals like parades to commemorate, commune or whatever with said figure. Fancy robes and hats. Temples. Taking money from the little people to pay for it all, and finding ways to persuade them that this is a wonderful arrangement. infallible, and unprovable, dogma. Sacred texts. Subservience to the leader, defiance of external threats.
Nope, North Korea’s state religion covers all the bases. So did the state worship of Lenin in the Soviet Union, and the personality cult worship of many dictatorships of the 20th Century. The only thing they didn’t have was the passage of time, which is what truly legitimises religions. You and I can state with knowledge when those religions were created, by whom, and how. Our ability to do so with ancient religions is a little more hazy, but the elements are all the same.
What’s a “pseudo-religion”? How does it differ from a “real” religion? What turns history into legend, legend into myth, and myth into religion? Merely the passage of time. When people stop believing a religion it reverts to mythology (ie Thor and Zeus). So these categories are much more fluid than religionists will admit. That’s why they insist on special words like “religion”, and “church” or “mosque” to create a false separation of their set of superstitions, and their temples, from from the mythologies of long-gone civilisations.
What separates a cult from a religion? Membership numbers. That’s all. Perception. When Mormonism got enough adherents, it switched from cult to religion. When Christianity got enough members it switched from sect to new religion. And so it goes. The official version of history, as written by The Winners. These categories are very fluid, and subject to change.
I stand by my claim that truly secular societies - societies which make a conscious decision to not endorse any form of religion, including ones they are intent on inventing - are superior to theocracies.
Cheers.