Council of Europe votes against creationist teaching

[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.

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.

i was just explaining how that would infringe human rights. i was generalizing, so I used the most wide known declaration.

then you referred to the UN resolution, while I assumed we're still talking about the non-binding resolution which is the subject of this whole thread.

[Ban Hammer 13,990]

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

redundant

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.

i was just explaining how that would infringe human rights. i was generalizing, so I used the most wide known declaration.

then you referred to the UN resolution, while I assumed we're still talking about the non-binding resolution which is the subject of this whole thread.

wrong. you quoted the un resolution prior to me even posting in this thread.

[Fandango 1,440]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

[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..

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...

A lot of theories that are now taken for granted where once considered pseudo-science. To simply rule out the unknown takes science back into the dark ages.

Then again I do not think this has anything to do with science or scientist but rather to do with lawmakers and people in power who are pushing their own agendas. Either way religion should not be mixed with science as they have nothing to do with one another. Religion is philosophical, to say the least, and has nothing to do with science..

[DeadPoolX 9]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

I'm not Christian, but... I just find it interesting that many of the people who claim "Christians are nutjobs" are rarely well-adjusted themselves.

[pedroh 21]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

and I NEVER FUKINC SAID all christians are nutjobs.. ok, so don't put fukcin words in my mouth yall

Edited October 17, 2007 by pedroh

[pedroh 21]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

I'm not Christian, but... I just find it interesting that many of the people who claim "Christians are nutjobs" are rarely well-adjusted themselves.

go on... what you meant?

[FVA 0]

On October 4, the council's Parliamentary Body voted in favour of its members states promoting evolution as "a fundamental scientific theory" and to "firmly oppose the teaching the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution". The resolution is not binding on the council's 47 members states.

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

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

i was talking about the universal declaration of human rights. you were talking about the UN resolution. resolution is the key word.

[Ban Hammer 13,990]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

and I NEVER FUKINC SAID all christians are nutjobs.. ok, so don't put fukcin words in my mouth yall

so what did you mean by the "wackos" in your above post?

[Heracles 417]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

Can you show me where exactly in the constitution it mentions a separation of church and state? I have never been able to find it..

All I found is "The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."

[FVA 0]

can we talk about Europe again? religion in US will turn into this thread being locked.

[Ban Hammer 13,990]

On October 4, the council's Parliamentary Body voted in favour of its members states promoting evolution as "a fundamental scientific theory" and to "firmly oppose the teaching the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution". The resolution is not binding on the council's 47 members states.

Article 18 of Universal declaration of Human Rights:

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

i was talking about the universal declaration of human rights. you were talking about the UN resolution. resolution is the key word.

post 5 is entirely about the un resolution. has that sunk in yet with you? you brought up the un resolution, i made a comment to it, and you've danced around and tried to obscure that fact ever since. i did not post prior to your post (#5 in this thread) so i really have no clue what is running thru your mind about right now other than perhaps a bit of guilt for having your hand slapped while in the cookie jar.

to spell it out for you - your post #5 contains the entire language of that section of the un resolution.......got that?

don't try to play like you're referencing something else with that post.

[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...

A lot of theories that are now taken for granted where once considered pseudo-science. To simply rule out the unknown takes science back into the dark ages.

Then again I do not think this has anything to do with science or scientist but rather to do with lawmakers and people in power who are pushing their own agendas. Either way religion should not be mixed with science as they have nothing to do with one another. Religion is philosophical, to say the least, and has nothing to do with science..

Teachers don't rule it out I suspect it just doesn't come up. Science curriculums at the high school level are fairly simple. What used to be typical, at least from my experience is that at the high school level - you'd be told to interpret a specific chemical process or law of physics in a general way that isn't necessarily correct - but from the point of view of the curriculum - avoids opening up a huge area of advanced study that would go beyond what is deemed necessary for a balanced scientific education within the available term time. Those advanced areas would then be explored at the A-Level or Undergraduate stage.

I don't see that as a problem - but muddying the waters of a 'hard' subject with philosophical nonsense that has no application to scientific theory as far as examination questions go should be avoided IMO.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Number 6

[DeadPoolX 9]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

I'm not Christian, but... I just find it interesting that many of the people who claim "Christians are nutjobs" are rarely well-adjusted themselves.

go on... what you meant?

I should have clarified. I wasn't referring to anyone (on or off VJ) in particular. Just various people I've met over the years. It's been my experience that individuals who side with and proclaim extreme ideals are usually somewhat unhinged. In other words, there's nothing wrong with being religious, just like there's nothing wrong with not being religious. However, problems arise when one side or the other begins thinking that their way is the only way and that everyone else must follow and adapt.

[pedroh 21]

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!)

So people who follow a Christian lifestyle are whackos? Nice.

no.. but they want to shove their christian lifestyle into everything, incluiding school, when there's a clear separation of church and state, but people use the 'our founding fathers blablabla' to try to say we shouldn't teach evolution in schools and whatnot

and I NEVER FUKINC SAID all christians are nutjobs.. ok, so don't put fukcin words in my mouth yall

so what did you mean by the "wackos" in your above post?

thanks!! a non-smartass question..

I was talking, for example, people who want to BAN evolution or other scientific theories from public schools, or ban books and what is not 'proper' according to christianism.. those are the wackos I'm talking about.. censoring just because some dude thinks is not christian, is not good for the educational system