Stop teaching pseudoscience in school

[_Fortigurn]

I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you.

The you definitely shouldn't have a political voice. In fact you should be locked up for the safety of society.

That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it?

No, that's not what I said. I said that you shouldn't have a political voice and you should be locked up because you said this:

I will tell you that if you tried to take away my political voice and succeeded I'd consider killing you.

That's very different to saying 'I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it'. You can fight for it in a range of ways which don't involve killing me, or anyone else.

If that means the Founding Fathers of the U.S., the political reformers of Britain, and those who fought (physically or legally) for rights and freedoms throughout the world maniacs that at least I'll have good company in my cell. A lot of them would be bestial Christians.

Wait a minute, now you're shifting the goalposts even further. Now you're talking about fighting legally or physically for 'rights and freedoms throughout the world'. That is not the topic under discussion. But for the record, yes I believe that anyone who claims to be fighting for rights and freedoms and starts by turning around and killing people is bestial. It's an instinctive, animalistic response. It is not a reasoned, rational, or ethical response.

[_Chap]

Amending the constitution is not impossible ...

But for given what is required to amend the US constitution, and given the bizarre nature of the amendments you seem to have in mind, only a person quite detached from reality (or a timewaster) could expect anyone to take such ideas seriously.

[_EAllusion]

Is this your own idea, or can you cite the relevant scholarly literature? I see no evidence for this whatever, and considerable evidence to the contrary. I see many religious people protesting strongly against US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and yet the US continues to be involved in all these conflicts. I see Creationists utterly unable to have their religious views incorporated into national curriculum material.

Yes, because religious people are one giant hivemind vote that supports all the same policies.

The US Supreme Court has 9 out of 9 religious people on it. (5 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 2 protestants). The United States Congress has one open atheist and over 400 people who are known to be religious. The current president is religious. All mainstream candidates for the presidency are religious.

In other words, trolling.

[_Fortigurn]

That I consider political freedom so important that I would fight for it means that I shouldn't have it? That's an odd stance.

I'm putting the odds of trolling at 8 to 1 right now.

Yeah, I'm getting the same vibe.

Comments such as this remind me that this forum is largely populated by citizens of the US. In a similar discussion on an extremely large Australian forum (just over 96,000 members), when I made this same proposal it was understood as completely serious (which it was), and was met with universal enthusiasm. Intelligent discussion ensued. But in Australia we have no argument over the separation of the church and state, which is very well defined in our country and receives almost complete all religious and secular citizens. You're actually allowed to talk about issues such as this in Australia without people talking about how they would consider killing you if the hypothetical situation became real.

As for trolling, I refer you to an earlier post of mine:

For the record, I am myself a Christian. But I don't believe religious people should take an active part in the political process, and I've always abstained from political involvement in my country of origin (Australia).

I am not trolling. I am speaking my mind on the subject. This is what I actually believe. Not only that, it's what I live up to.

[_Fortigurn]

Yup. Fortigurn is either:

(a) Serious in his proposal for the political disenfranchisement of US citizens with religious beliefs (and it is now clear that this is his proposal)

Yes I am serious.

If (a), he is so far removed from the spectrum of practical politics that he can properly be classified as (colloquially) a nutjob.

I wasn't expecting the discussion to degenerate into personal abuse quite so quickly. But again, 'This is America', as they say. You're confusing 'unpopular' with 'unrealistic', and 'implausible' with 'impractical'.

[_Fortigurn]

Is this your own idea, or can you cite the relevant scholarly literature? I see no evidence for this whatever, and considerable evidence to the contrary. I see many religious people protesting strongly against US involvement in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, and yet the US continues to be involved in all these conflicts. I see Creationists utterly unable to have their religious views incorporated into national curriculum material.

Yes, because religious people are one giant hivemind vote that supports all the same policies.

Not only have I said no such thing, I don't believe any such thing. On the contrary, such an idea has been implied by others (yourself included).

The US Supreme Court has 9 out of 9 religious people on it. (5 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 2 protestants). The United States Congress has one open atheist and over 400 people who are known to be religious. The current president is religious. All mainstream candidates for the presidency are religious.

Your point? Are you presenting this as evidence for the claim that 80% of US citizens are religious, and that religious people have 'almost total control' over the government and military? Did you see my request for relevant scholarly literature? That was a serious request.

[_Fortigurn]

No. I think they should have the right, for instance, to vote for representatives who promise to repeal the 4th amendment. I think they should be opposed by other people's votes and speech so they are not successful in their attempts. I don't think it is proper to simply strip their right to vote for advocating the government have a power I do not think it should.

So you think they should have the power to have their religious views included in educational curriculum as fact?

[_Fortigurn]

But for given what is required to amend the US constitution, and given the bizarre nature of the amendments you seem to have in mind, only a person quite detached from reality (or a timewaster) could expect anyone to take such ideas seriously.

Once again, you're confusing 'unpopular' with 'unrealistic', and 'implausible' with 'impractical'. I do not understand why such a discussion as this has to be dragged down to the level of personal abuse. Is it possible to discuss the issue rationally here?

[_Fortigurn]

Here's a question for discussion (not an invitation for personal abuse). Is it practical to require schools owned by religious institutions to teach as fact scientific theories and models which contradict their religious convictions?

[_Chap]

EAllusion:

I really, really recommend at this point that you join me in backing away towards the door, nodding and smiling. Once outside, run like hell.

This is not a troll ...