This sounds like a great idea!

[eppie]

Chew on this:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vaster...-forskolan

Hit translate, if you need to.

I see where this is going. Do you?

No thanks I don't need a translation.
Sweden is also one of the countries that discriminates atheists (I guess you didn't knew that?). Everyone pays an extra amoutn of tax to the church. Only of you undertake a series of actions you can get id of this extra taxation.

To me religious education is child abuse. And I don't mean educate kids about different views on how the world works, but I mean telling kids God exists and what he can do to you and what they have to do for him.


With all the extremism it would have been a no brainer to stop subsidizing muslim (extreme) schools in teh Netherlands.....but I guess you understand who are against this? The christians......they of course see that you can subsidize schools teaching about one god and not subsidize schools teaching about another.
(another discrimination in the Netherlands.....religious schools can without giving good reasons choose not to accept a child (they can just say that the views of their parents don't fit with the school) normal schools are not allowed to do this, which of course leads to them ending up with all the difficult kids)
Mind you: the Netherlands is in the top three of countries with least discimination against atheists.
This is why I always get a rash if I hear americans talk about their /freedom of religion.....it is for religious people somehow very difficult to understand when they are discriminating.

[Ashock]

Chew on this:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/vaster...-forskolan

Hit translate, if you need to.

I see where this is going. Do you?

No thanks I don't need a translation.
Sweden is also one of the countries that discriminates atheists (I guess you didn't knew that?). Everyone pays an extra amoutn of tax to the church. Only of you undertake a series of actions you can get id of this extra taxation.

To me religious education is child abuse. And I don't mean educate kids about different views on how the world works, but I mean telling kids God exists and what he can do to you and what they have to do for him.


With all the extremism it would have been a no brainer to stop subsidizing muslim (extreme) schools in teh Netherlands.....but I guess you understand who are against this? The christians......they of course see that you can subsidize schools teaching about one god and not subsidize schools teaching about another.
(another discrimination in the Netherlands.....religious schools can without giving good reasons choose not to accept a child (they can just say that the views of their parents don't fit with the school) normal schools are not allowed to do this, which of course leads to them ending up with all the difficult kids)
Mind you: the Netherlands is in the top three of countries with least discimination against atheists.
This is why I always get a rash if I hear americans talk about their /freedom of religion.....it is for religious people somehow very difficult to understand when they are discriminating.

Coming from someone who is extremely far from organized religion of any sort, when I see a statement this: "To me religious education is child abuse", the conversation ends immediately.

[FireIceTalon]

If it isn't child abuse, it still is indoctrination and discourages independent and critical thinking, not to mention it reduces the entire workings of the world down to the will of an unseen but supposedly 'all knowing and all powerful' deity. Maybe thats not child abuse, but it ain't much better. It certainly can lead to it, in that it promotes that children must accept discipline and that perfectly normal things they do are "sin" and they must be punished for it.

Quite frankly, organized religion is disgusting and the world will be a much better and happier place when it is abolished entirely.

[kandrathe]

Sweden is also one of the countries that discriminates atheists (I guess you didn't knew that?). Everyone pays an extra amoutn of tax to the church. Only of you undertake a series of actions you can get id of this extra taxation.

Which has more to do with the lack of a separation between church and state. Historically Sweden's monarchy used the Lutheran church as a mechanism for tracking parish migration, and for census, and taxation. FYI -- they also discriminated against non-Lutherans, which is a reason some of my ancestors came to the US. The church also routinely gave a Household Examination, which was a catechism test. If you failed it you were limited in your profession. But, on the upside it forced the population to be literate.

To me religious education is child abuse. And I don't mean educate kids about different views on how the world works, but I mean telling kids God exists and what he can do to you and what they have to do for him.

This is one of the most ridiculous things you've uttered. Cite any psychological study supporting your belief.

Here's some relaying the opposite, or in that the more affiliated you are with an organized religion, the fewer antisocial behavior is evident.

http://youthandreligion.nd.edu/research-findings/

With all the extremism it would have been a no brainer to stop subsidizing muslim (extreme) schools in teh Netherlands.....but I guess you understand who are against this? The christians......they of course see that you can subsidize schools teaching about one god and not subsidize schools teaching about another.
(another discrimination in the Netherlands.....religious schools can without giving good reasons choose not to accept a child (they can just say that the views of their parents don't fit with the school) normal schools are not allowed to do this, which of course leads to them ending up with all the difficult kids)
Mind you: the Netherlands is in the top three of countries with least discimination against atheists.

What makes sense sociologically for any creed, or even atheists, is to prohibit any exhortation to commit violent acts. For me, that includes many things secular society considers main stream, like euthanasia or capital punishment.

This is why I always get a rash if I hear americans talk about their /freedom of religion.....it is for religious people somehow very difficult to understand when they are discriminating.

I always get a rash when Europeans mistake our 1st amendment as freedom from religion. What it proscribes is government preference of any creed, or interference with a person freedom of thought. It is supposed to prevent the government from involvement with an individual's practice or not of their chosen faith.

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='213883' dateline='1498705143']
To me religious education is child abuse. And I don't mean educate kids about different views on how the world works, but I mean telling kids God exists and what he can do to you and what they have to do for him.[/quote]This is one of the most ridiculous things you've uttered. Cite any psychological study supporting your belief.

Here's some relaying the opposite, or in that the more affiliated you are with an organized religion, the fewer antisocial behavior is evident.

http://youthandreligion.nd.edu/research-findings/
[quote]
depends what you call antisocial. If you are praying to Mekka several times per day in a village in Utah, that is pretty antisocial.
There are lots of examples (sorry I am not a link master) of intelligent people who were brought up in very strict christian families who obviously when being in their late teens early twenties started understanding that what they were thought by their parents did not make any logical sense....but the fear in these people (fear for going to hell I guess) brought these people in serious psychological problems.
But more general I think kids should be thought things that are true, not things that their parents believe. I mean, who gives you the right to raise your kid christian? Maybe he wants to be a muslim?


[quote='kandrathe' pid='213883' dateline='1498705143']
What makes sense sociologically for any creed, or even atheists, is to prohibit any exhortation to commit violent acts. For me, that includes many things secular society considers main stream, like euthanasia or capital punishment.
[quote]

like those two things are the same......
Noone forces you to euthenise yourself. And to me you don't have the right to tell a person that wants to end his own life that he is not allowed to do so.



[quote='kandrathe' pid='213883' dateline='1498705143']I always get a rash when Europeans mistake our 1st amendment as freedom from religion. What it proscribes is government preference of any creed, or interference with a person freedom of thought. It is supposed to prevent the government from involvement with an individual's practice or not of their chosen faith.
[/quote]
Your constitution was written in a completely different time and needs to be updated. It is sad to see this very old document is always used by some people to for example allow everyone to walk around with guns.....when there is no strong government indeed having the possibility to fight for your justice is a good thing.....but in a western developed society it brings only problems.........same goes for the misuse of the freedom of religion amendment.

[FireIceTalon]

Americans love to slobber all over that little piece of paper called The Constitution. But, this was a document made by white, straight, slave owning males - FOR white, straight, slave owning males. I couldn't give a single fuck about that document and whenever some right-winger tries to use it as a shield to make any sort of political point, I cringe.

As far as religion goes: My fiance used to be LSD many years ago, but when a string of tragic events happened in her life and all the church and its false prophets could tell her to do was pray, and nothing happened, that pretty convinced her that the church and organized religion in general is a joke. She became an atheist, and has never looked back since. It was like being freed from prison (mentally), AND socially. It was one of the best decisions she ever made, though even when she was young she was already very skeptical of what she was being taught. Religion teaches you nothing more than to respect authority, hierarchy, and to shame yourself or others for doing things that there is absolutely nothing wrong with, or even if there is something wrong with it that you need to repent to your 'lord and savior' right away and beg for forgiveness. I hate religion and its poisonous code of subjective moralist bullshit.

[kandrathe]

depends what you call antisocial. If you are praying to Mekka several times per day in a village in Utah, that is pretty antisocial.

If you looked at the study I cited, you'd know the examples of antisocial behavior in question. Not laying prostrate muttering in the direction of Mecca.

There are lots of examples (sorry I am not a link master) of intelligent people who were brought up in very strict christian families who obviously when being in their late teens early twenties started understanding that what they were thought by their parents did not make any logical sense....but the fear in these people (fear for going to hell I guess) brought these people in serious psychological problems.

Which is why I specifically said "study". We could hurl a friend of my third cousin's uncles third child's boyfriend said... all day. If you respect science, then there should be more than your( or Dawkins) gut feelings involved in your critical thinking.

Cohen-Zada, D. & Sander, W. (2011) Religious Participation versus Shopping: What Makes People Happier? Journal of Law and Economics.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13, 81-84.

Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2010). Religiosity and life satisfaction across nations. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 155-169.

Salsman, J. M., Brown, T. L., Brechting, E. H., & Carlson, C. R. (2005). The link between religion and spirituality and psychological adjustment: The mediating role of optimism and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 522–535.

But more general I think kids should be thought things that are true, not things that their parents believe. I mean, who gives you the right to raise your kid christian? Maybe he wants to be a muslim?

I guess therein lays the major issue in difference of existential philosophy. Who gives you the right to have children? Who gives you the right to speak? Who gives you the right to breathe my air?

What makes sense sociologically for any creed, or even atheists, is to prohibit any exhortation to commit violent acts. For me, that includes many things secular society considers main stream, like euthanasia or capital punishment.

like those two things are the same......
Noone forces you to euthenise yourself. And to me you don't have the right to tell a person that wants to end his own life that he is not allowed to do so.

Not to get off track... my point was that, to me, you have radically dangerous beliefs that result in people dying. I will fight the law, but I won't accuse you of murder if you are acting within the law. I don't approve of capital punishment either, but again, I oppose the law and work to change minds on the topic. At the end of the day, we still need to live together on this planet.

I always get a rash when Europeans mistake our 1st amendment as freedom from religion. What it proscribes is government preference of any creed, or interference with a person freedom of thought. It is supposed to prevent the government from involvement with an individual's practice or not of their chosen faith.

Your constitution was written in a completely different time and needs to be updated. It is sad to see this very old document is always used by some people to for example allow everyone to walk around with guns.....when there is no strong government indeed having the possibility to fight for your justice is a good thing.....but in a western developed society it brings only problems.........same goes for the misuse of the freedom of religion amendment.

Ha! It is amended and amendable when 2/3rds of the states ratify the change. No one is proposing any changes to the 1st amendment! You are incredibly uninformed on the foundation of liberal democracy starting with John Locke and Stuart Mill.

As for the 2nd amendment, I think more, and more people are seeing the reason why the enlightened thinkers 400 years ago thought it would be best if the government was in constant fear of the citizens. Rather than the opposite.

I like living in a place where I can think or say whatever I like and not have the government muzzle me for it. And mostly, as long as I'm not damaging someone's property or hurting anything, and living within the laws. I can do most whatever I want. I enjoy freedom. So much so that I chafe against the obvious cases where I feel we could handle things better without restrictive laws.

But, back on point. The subsidies are not for religious study, but for general education.

[LavCat]

Americans love to slobber all over that little piece of paper called The Constitution. But, this was a document made by white, straight, slave owning males - FOR white, straight, slave owning males. I couldn't give a single fuck about that document and whenever some right-winger tries to use it as a shield to make any sort of political point, I cringe.

Two of the signers had been involved with slavery, though by the time of the drafting of the Constitution were abolitionists: Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin. Gouverneur Morris (according to James Madison) spoke openly against slavery during the constitutional convention. Alexander Hamilton was an abolitionist. Wikipedia says Roger Sherman was opposed to slavery in his personal beliefs. Rufus King was an abolitionist.

John Langdon assisted Oney Judge*, Martha Washington's fugitive slave, to escape recapture.

John Dickinson, once the largest slave holder in Delaware, had freed his slaves before the constitutional convention. In later life he was active as an abolitionist. Likewise Richard Bassett had freed his slaves and become an abolitionist.

The Wikipedia biographies of most other signers make no mention of slaves or slavery. Some signers, sadly, such as Washington were noted slaveholders.

I grant you the little piece of paper is a white male document. You shouldn't go around making assumptions of people's orientation.


*As an aside on religious education, "Oney said she had received no education under the Washingtons, nor religious instruction." She became a devout Christian only later in life.

[kandrathe]

I grant you the little piece of paper is a white male document. You shouldn't go around making assumptions of people's orientation.

I was thinking that as well. Henry VIII implemented death penalty laws in 1533 for homosexuality in the British Empire, including the colonies.

[FireIceTalon]

I grant you the little piece of paper is a white male document. You shouldn't go around making assumptions of people's orientation.

I was thinking that as well. Henry VIII implemented death penalty laws in 1533 for homosexuality in the British Empire, including the colonies.

And I would condemn him, just as I would present day Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sudan, UAE, etc for the same reasons.

That being said, it still doesn't vindicate the second-class treatment that homosexuals still experience in the US and other western nations. It may not be punishable by death in the context of law, but persons who fall under the LGBTQ identity are still marginalized and viewed as inferior or being "the other", even with legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court just a couple years ago. Being openly gay in America is still a huge risk that can lead to being ostracized at the very least, assaulted or killed at the very worst, depending on where you live.

[LavCat]

I grant you the little piece of paper is a white male document. You shouldn't go around making assumptions of people's orientation.

I was thinking that as well. Henry VIII implemented death penalty laws in 1533 for homosexuality in the British Empire, including the colonies.

And I would condemn him, just as I would present day Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sudan, UAE, etc for the same reasons.

That being said, it still doesn't vindicate the second-class treatment that homosexuals still experience in the US and other western nations. It may not be punishable by death in the context of law, but persons who fall under the LGBTQ identity are still marginalized and viewed as inferior or being "the other", even with legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court just a couple years ago. Being openly gay in America is still a huge risk that can lead to being ostracized at the very least, assaulted or killed at the very worst, depending on where you live.

I agree with you.