Council of Europe votes against creationist teaching

[FVA 0]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

at least most of the EU countries won't be forced to do it. and the countries that want to do it will have to think twice about it. so i wouldn't call it worthless.

eta: if it's not enforceable what's the use of the bloody thing?

how about freedom of choice?

do we need some un resolution to have freedom of choice?

apparently there will always be people that 'think' they know better what the people around them should believe and/or do, so sadly yes, sometimes you do need non-binding resolutions to keep having freedom of choice.

Its the European Convention on human rights (tied to the European court), rather than the UN declaration.

and Number 6 is right. It's not UN, it's the European Council. (and to be precise, it's Article 9 in the European Convention of Human Rights, which sounds exactly the same as Article 19 in the Universal Declaration).

"what do you suppose" is the difference between UN and the European Council?

[Ban Hammer 12,870]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

at least most of the EU countries won't be forced to do it. and the countries that want to do it will have to think twice about it. so i wouldn't call it worthless.

eta: if it's not enforceable what's the use of the bloody thing?

how about freedom of choice?

do we need some un resolution to have freedom of choice?

apparently there will always be people that 'think' they know better what the people around them should believe and/or do, so sadly yes, sometimes you do need non-binding resolutions to keep having freedom of choice.

Its the European Convention on human rights (tied to the European court), rather than the UN declaration.

and Number 6 is right. It's not UN, it's the European Council. (and to be precise, it's Article 9 in the European Convention of Human Rights, which sounds exactly the same as Article 19 in the Universal Declaration).

"what do you suppose" is the difference between UN and the European Council?

got a link for that about the eu? here's mine on the un.

link

link

Edited October 17, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Conv...on_Human_Rights

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Cour...ights#Procedure

[FVA 0]

got a link for about the the eu? here's mine on the un.

link

link

i'm not talking about the differences between the actual declarations, which obviously won't be a lot of them. The european version is pretty much the original one, just scrambled up a little and with more protocols.

you said "we need some UN resolution to have freedom of choice?". this was a European Council resolution. there's a big difference there.

[Ban Hammer 12,870]

got a link for about the the eu? here's mine on the un.

link

link

i'm not talking about the differences between the actual declarations, which obviously won't be a lot of them. The european version is pretty much the original one, just scrambled up a little and with more protocols.

you said "we need some UN resolution to have freedom of choice?". this was a European Council resolution. there's a big difference there.

just seeing if you knew the difference. the difference is highlighted - the eu one took place after the un one:

In the early 1950s Western European countries formed the Council of Europe and created the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This international treaty entered into force September 3, 1953, and was binding upon countries that ratified it. The European Convention established basic rights similar to those in the Universal Declaration, but included provisions for enforcement and adjudication.

[FVA 0]

got a link for about the the eu? here's mine on the un.

link

link

i'm not talking about the differences between the actual declarations, which obviously won't be a lot of them. The european version is pretty much the original one, just scrambled up a little and with more protocols.

you said "we need some UN resolution to have freedom of choice?". this was a European Council resolution. there's a big difference there.

just seeing if you knew the difference. the difference is highlighted - the eu one took place after the un one:

In the early 1950s Western European countries formed the Council of Europe and created the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This international treaty entered into force September 3, 1953, and was binding upon countries that ratified it. The European Convention established basic rights similar to those in the Universal Declaration, but included provisions for enforcement and adjudication.

that's what i said, too. and i was asking you if you know the difference.

that wasn't my point, though. i hate repeating myself, but here i go:

you said "we need some UN resolution to have freedom of choice?". this was a European Council resolution.

[Heracles 417]

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

So why should someone religious have atheism and evolution shoved down their kids throats? Is it wrong to talk about religion, a belief, while okay to teach about atheism, which is also a belief??

Both religion and atheism are beliefs. The only difference is that atheism is being prioritized in western nations. Atheism is being falsely made out to be a neutral, middle ground, belief. When in reality it is a just the same as any other religion but at the complete opposite end of the spectrum..

Edited October 17, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[FVA 0]

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

So why should someone religious have atheism and evolution shoved down their kids throats? Is it wrong to talk about religion, a belief, while okay to teach about atheism, which is also a belief??

nobody's talking about atheism. or any other religion. is up to each person to practice religion in their own time, since it's such a personal matter. That's why there are Sunday churches, no?

as about evolution...you think that teaching the kids science and biology and anatomy and all that is wrong? like...REALLY?!?!?!??

[Ban Hammer 12,870]

got a link for about the the eu? here's mine on the un.

link

link

i'm not talking about the differences between the actual declarations, which obviously won't be a lot of them. The european version is pretty much the original one, just scrambled up a little and with more protocols.

you said "we need some UN resolution to have freedom of choice?". this was a European Council resolution. there's a big difference there.

just seeing if you knew the difference. the difference is highlighted - the eu one took place after the un one:

In the early 1950s Western European countries formed the Council of Europe and created the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This international treaty entered into force September 3, 1953, and was binding upon countries that ratified it. The European Convention established basic rights similar to those in the Universal Declaration, but included provisions for enforcement and adjudication.

that's what i said, too. and i was asking you if you know the difference.

that wasn't my point, though. i hate repeating myself, but here i go:

you said "we need some UN resolution to have freedom of choice?". this was a European Council resolution.

if you'd look back, you posted

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

you're the one that was talking about the un version, which i addressed. then you did a switch to the European Convention on Human Rights and go on about how my comment does not apply to the eu one - which is correct as i was addressing the un one...........very slick of you.

[Heracles 417]

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

So why should someone religious have atheism and evolution shoved down their kids throats? Is it wrong to talk about religion, a belief, while okay to teach about atheism, which is also a belief??

nobody's talking about atheism. or any other religion. is up to each person to practice religion in their own time, since it's such a personal matter. That's why there are Sunday churches, no?

as about evolution...you think that teaching the kids science and biology and anatomy and all that is wrong? like...REALLY?!?!?!??

####### does creationist refer to?????????

What is wrong with 'optional' religious classes in school, for kids who want to take it?? What is wrong with a science teacher saying that they do not have all the answers, rather than drilling evolution into kids??

Schools are there to broaden kids minds rather than the status quo of restricting them to one belief.. Lets not even get started on American colleges..

Edited October 17, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[jundp 191]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

I came late to this conversation, but are you saying the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a worthless, feel good resolution? I would disagree, because the UDHR has been used as a springboard for many great human rights victories, including the release of Nelson Mandela and urging countries to step in a stop genocide in Darfur. Now granted, much more needs to happen to stop what's occuring in Darfur (and other countries), but since the UDHR came out of the world's repugnance of Hitler's actions during WWII, I wouldn't say it's worthless or "feel good" (assuming you mean that in a deragatory manner) (of course, you know what happens when we "assume").

[Ban Hammer 12,870]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

I came late to this conversation, but are you saying the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a worthless, feel good resolution? I would disagree, because the UDHR has been used as a springboard for many great human rights victories, including the release of Nelson Mandela and urging countries to step in a stop genocide in Darfur. Now granted, much more needs to happen to stop what's occuring in Darfur (and other countries), but since the UDHR came out of the world's repugnance of Hitler's actions during WWII, I wouldn't say it's worthless or "feel good" (assuming you mean that in a deragatory manner) (of course, you know what happens when we "assume").

already covered why - it has no enforcement/bite to it. it's just a piece of paper.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

So why should someone religious have atheism and evolution shoved down their kids throats? Is it wrong to talk about religion, a belief, while okay to teach about atheism, which is also a belief??

nobody's talking about atheism. or any other religion. is up to each person to practice religion in their own time, since it's such a personal matter. That's why there are Sunday churches, no?

as about evolution...you think that teaching the kids science and biology and anatomy and all that is wrong? like...REALLY?!?!?!??

####### does creationist refer to?????????

What is wrong with 'optional' religious classes in school, for kids who want to take it?? What is wrong with a science teacher saying that they do not have all the answers, rather than drilling evolution into kids??

Schools are there to broaden kids minds rather than the status quo of restricting them to one belief.. Lets not even get started on American colleges..

At a guess because pseudo-science has no place in a science classroom. Religious-Ed maybe... but keeping the subject 'pure' as it were, and free of philosophical contradictions isn't particularly problematic IMO considering the material that is taught in high school science classrooms.

Evolution may be taught in passing - but certainly the bulk of my work in the combined sciences was practical and mathematical based on applied theories. There's no means of experimentally testing evolution - and I highly doubt that a high-school curriculum will go into it in any real depth.

That said - again there is no reason to confuse the subject by bringing in a philosophical subject into an empirical one.

I took several science classes in high-school and sixth form - between 1989 and 1995. Hard to believe that the curriculum could have changed that much...

Edited October 17, 2007 by Number 6

[NavarreMan 10]

When it come to being a piece of something ya'll are arguing with the master expert in this field. It is futile.

[pedroh 21]

How is creationism a threat to human rights?

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

according to that, it is against human rights to preach religion in schools and practically force the kids to learn about it. Maybe their parents are atheists, and don't want their kids to have to deal with that.

i can see a lot of reasons for which teaching 'creationism' would infringe human rights.

not binding, a worthless feel good resolution.

at least most of the EU countries won't be forced to do it. and the countries that want to do it will have to think twice about it. so i wouldn't call it worthless.

eta: if it's not enforceable what's the use of the bloody thing?

how about freedom of choice?

do we need some un resolution to have freedom of choice?

in the USA yea.. or else we'll have the 'OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CHRISTIANS, AND WE SHOULD TEACH EVERYTHING THE CHRISTIAN WAY' wackos.. (and yea they also talk in CAPS!)