Religion and Education, a thread and poll on "Accelerated Christian Education"

[Scribz]

I went to public school thank you very much. I find the association you made insulting. I'm half tempted to report it. X|

Exactly! I was actually insulted, despite not even living in this guy's country, just because I went to a public school.


Also, ActRaiser, it doesn't matter what you choose to learn in the ACE programme, all of the books are skewed to undermine other racial backgrounds that aren't white, Catholics, socialists, liberals, atheists. All while upping thinks like, KKK, white supremacy, republicans, protestants, and creationism.

This worries me as it's propaganda, not only that, it's fundementalist propoganda.

What also worries me, is the educational aspect that isn't even based on viewpoints (which none of it should be) is underpar. That it doesn't even teach you the level of skills you could otherwise develop in public school (i.e. the standard of teaching, is worse than public schools).

So, let's forget the fact that it's heavily biased. And then just focus on the part were it's depriving children of a decent education outright.

Now, as for your argument...Just because you can choose what part of a bowl of shit you can eat, doesn't make it any better; it's still a bowl of shit. And your argument implies that there's a PART of the programme, that is actually good.

Now, your motive for this, on "fear of islam", is just...stupid.

Why not just fear religious fundamentalists in general? I have a concern over them, Islam or Christian. Which is why i'm against ACE.

[ActRaiser]

Exactly! I was actually insulted, despite not even living in this guy's country, just because I went to a public school.


Also, ActRaiser, it doesn't matter what you choose to learn in the ACE programme, all of the books are skewed to undermine other racial backgrounds that aren't white, Catholics, socialists, liberals, atheists. All while upping thinks like, KKK, white supremacy, republicans, protestants, and creationism.

This worries me as it's propaganda, not only that, it's fundementalist propoganda.

What also worries me, is the educational aspect that isn't even based on viewpoints (which none of it should be) is underpar. That it doesn't even teach you the level of skills you could otherwise develop in public school (i.e. the standard of teaching, is worse than public schools).

So, let's forget the fact that it's heavily biased. And then just focus on the part were it's depriving children of a decent education outright.

Now, as for your argument...Just because you can choose what part of a bowl of shit you can eat, doesn't make it any better; it's still a bowl of shit. And your argument implies that there's a PART of the programme, that is actually good.

Now, your motive for this, on "fear of islam", is just...stupid.

Why not just fear religious fundamentalists in general? I have a concern over them, Islam or Christian. Which is why i'm against ACE.

I've forfeited my supported for accelerated Christian Education. So I just don't care to talk about it anymore.

[Scribz]

I've forfeited my supported for accelerated Christian Education. So I just don't care to talk about it anymore.

Really?

Awesome! :D

/win.

[ActRaiser]

Really?

Awesome! :D

/win.

Uh, sure it's a /win.
I wasn't arguing, just wondering about this thing I've never heard of.

[Scribz]

You forfeited your support, so to me. It's a win.

I mean, unless you have a good argument to put across as to why it's good.

[ActRaiser]

You forfeited your support, so to me. It's a win.

I mean, unless you have a good argument to put across as to why it's good.

Ah, nah. I just always thought there was a slight difference between debate and argument in that debate was meant as a way to point out information whereas argument was just a verbal sort of fight.

[Scribz]

Ah, nah. I just always thought there was a slight difference between debate and argument in that debate was meant as a way to point out information whereas argument was just a verbal sort of fight.

The term are interchangeable in some cases.

In a debate, you have to put across your argument, or your case. Argument of offense, argument of defence.

In an argument however as in (to argue), it's just verbal aggression.

So, the term varies.

[ActRaiser]

Ah, okay.

[HaloAssault]

Woah, wait a minute. This almost sounds like a broadstroke generalization that homogenizes, what, 2.1 billion people?

Come on. You know it's the fundamentalists of every religion that are fucked up. Why are fundamentalist Muslims backwards even if they agree with scientists that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago? I don't know, let's google the legal policies and punishments of the Iranian government, or the Taliban. Why are fundamentalist Christians backward? Google ACE.

Crazy people are everywhere. Nothing pisses me off like "those dog kicking, kitten drowning Christians are so homophobic/racist/etc. etc."

Firstly, this.

Past that, I essentially agree with the overwhelming majority here. I do not think these things should be taught as fact to the children of America, to any child anywhere - and as this is spreading to the UK, possibly, where I live, it may soon be people I know at private schools who get taught this stuff. I'm opposed to it, in short, rather strongly, for all the reasons that have been expressed by others.

What I would raise as a point to consider is that many scientific theories are taught in school as facts, or in a way that makes them seem as such - unproven theories, sometimes. And, furthermore...the opposite view, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and such, are taught as fact when we may be completely wrong about them. It's just as bad to teach those things as fact than a differing opinion based on Christian beliefs.
Before anybody bites my head off, let me explain why I think everything, even "proven" scientific fact, should be taken with a grain of salt and an open mind. Firstly, science - broad as it is - is a vastly incomplete area of study. We know so very little about most scientific topics, and new discoveries could completely turn over everything we "know" at any point. So, these "facts" do not have much more base in firm, undeniable evidence than the opinions and views being taught as fact by the ACE.
And the point is that we have no way to verify even what we already "know" against anything other than our own findings. We have no confirmation outside of our own results, and so if we have some base things incredibly wrong because we are not yet advanced to understand them (or there is information that we don't yet have, or some such)...that would change literally everything we "know" about the universe through science.

So to accept that and teach it as "fact", when we have no real verification for it and any scientist will inform you that all of our understanding could be upended any minute, is just as ignorant and just as bad as teaching these Christian values, things they also believe to be "fact".


EDIT: Lolwhat, the last post was a week ago? This was on the first page, I didn't even go to the second, and yet the bottom thread on the first page was from 5 days ago. >___>. Weird. Sorry for reviving a dead thread.