Poll of the Day > it should be illegal to discuss jesus or bible in the class roo

(+) Yeah! (+)

if churches don't pay taxes to fund the schools, then people shouldn't learn about them there.

same for dmv, congress house, public parks, ex cetera

---

Does this apply to Kanga, also?

---

rexcrk posted...

Does this apply to Kanga, also?

who is kanga. do they pay taxes

---

OniRonin posted...

who is kanga. do they pay taxes

Take a look at your topic title.

---

rexcrk posted...

Take a look at your topic title.

i don't get it

---

Classes should be standardised with a functional learning plan and remove all autonomy from teachers.
---

But theyre a part of history.

---

congress house

You don't think schools should teach kids how their government works...?

---

As irreligious as I am, I'm against that. It sounds like the act of a tyrannical dictator to prohibit people talking about the things they want to talk about in certain places.

---

papercup posted...

You don't think schools should teach kids how their government works...?

no, you've misunderstood. congress house shouldn't discuss jesus or bible

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

As irreligious as I am, I'm against that. It sounds like the act of a tyrannical dictator to prohibit people talking about the things they want to talk about in certain places.

it's called separation of church and state, buddy. if the church doesn't like it they can simply pay taxes

---

Tigger is the worst Winnie the Pooh character

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It sounds like the act of a tyrannical dictator to prohibit people talking about the things they want to talk about in certain places.

It's common sense. A dictator never has enough influence to fully smother outside influence, but someone's society can blot out competing ideas. Leave schools as a place of learning and free thought and we can foster positive development, spread doctrine and we only instill compliance.
---

Nothing wrong with discussing the factually correct things in the bible in class...

...

like that sheep exist.

---

I disagree. Though, that being said, there are some schools that are also churches... Or are basically the same thing. The private school I went to for a time in my life was also part of a church. So, you could go to the school for free (or discounted) if you were part of the church.
---

OniRonin posted...

i don't get it

Look harder.

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It sounds like the act of a tyrannical dictator to prohibit people talking about the things they want to talk about in certain places.

This.

OniRonin posted...

it's called separation of church and state, buddy. if the church doesn't like it they can simply pay taxes

Except that separation should not include simply learning about a subject. Anything should be freely available to learn in school. (Taxes are irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise, nature, science and the entire rest of the world would also be barred from discussion.)

---

Yea no. That's not 'separation of church and state' that's 'destruction of freedom of speech' and 'tyrannical' and really not just as bad but worse. Plus you'd also need to apply it equally meaning Muslims couldn't talk about islam, jews about judism, hindus about their religion, and so-forth. I'm pretty sure everyone would scream 'oppression' and everything if you tried that. Plus what about religious clothes and what-not? Is a christian not allowed to wear a cross necklace but a muslim to wear a hijab or a hindu the dot-thing?

This sounds less like a legit opinion and more like some teen trying to be edgy by attacking religion.

---

keyblader1985 posted...

(Taxes are irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise, nature, science and the entire rest of the world would also be barred from discussion.)

what the hell are you talking about? i dont get to be tax free just because i sell rocks or trees or whatever. but churches can sell religion without paying taxes on it at all

---

You realize you're using the same argument I just said was irrelevant?

---

Unbridled9 posted...

That's not 'separation of church and state' that's 'destruction of freedom of speech' and 'tyrannical' and really not just as bad but worse.

what? im not talking about preventing churches from talking about jesus stuff. they just cant get a free rider off the american tax payer

---

keyblader1985 posted...

You realize you're using the same argument I just said was irrelevant?

'i think your argument is irrelevant, therefore you can't use it. no, i won't explain why its irrelevant'

---

Explain how it is relevant then, when all the other things I mention don't pay taxes to the country and are still free to learn in school.

---

OniRonin posted...

'i think your argument is irrelevant, therefore you can't use it. no, i won't explain why its irrelevant'

It sounds more like he said whether they pay taxes is irrelevant... Meaning that it should matter whether they pay taxes or not to teach about something. Especially since that would mean anybody could pay the schools to teach the kids about something. At least, according to you...

Also, why should they cut out a chuck of history just because you don't like religion. Isn't religion like a huge part of history?
---

keyblader1985 posted...

Explain how it is relevant then, when all the other things I mention don't pay taxes to the country and are still free to learn in school.

the other things do pay taxes... if i sell you nature shit i pay taxes on it lol.

---

What does selling have to do with school?

---

Public schools don't promote religion though

keyblader1985 posted...

What does selling have to do with school?

taxes are used to pay for schools

---

Mom take away your hot wheels and made you go to church on Sunday?

dedbus posted...

Mom take away your hot wheels and made you go to church on Sunday?

I don't live with my mom and I don't have any hot wheels. Not everyone is a little kid... I'm not sure why you'd assume I am? I'm actually almost 20.

---

I wasn't assuming you were a little kid. I was assuming you had to endure a similar childhood trauma and that you carried that tantrum of resentment into adulthood.

Lol did tc just come up with this nonsense so he had an excuse to use the term separation of church and state to appear halfway intelligent?

cos it kinda had the opposite effect

---

OniRonin posted...

I don't live with my mom and I don't have any hot wheels. Not everyone is a little kid... I'm not sure why you'd assume I am? I'm actually almost 20.

https://youtu.be/KD8h_DfW_o4

---

FatalAccident posted...

Lol did tc just come up with this nonsense so he had an excuse to use the term separation of church and state to appear halfway intelligent?

cos it kinda had the opposite effect

actually youre the one who doesn't appear halfyway intelligent

---

Religious history is still history, this topic is idiotic.

---

OniRonin posted...

taxes are used to pay for schools

And what does that have to do with whether it should be taught in school?

Are you actually suggesting that we should only learn what people pay for us to learn?

---

OniRonin posted...

if churches don't pay taxes to fund the schools, then people shouldn't learn about them there.

I could get behind this policy. Of course there are a few other things that don't contribute to the school budget.
How many people become professional athletes? Just do away with PE.
How much in taxes do historians pay? Do a way with Social Studies.

Let's take this a step further. Since students are legally required to attend school anyway and removing the wasteful programs has freed up some time in their schedule there are things they could do that are immediately profitable. Each school could partner with private organizations to produce some of their products. These new classes could even replace detention. Then if the students aren't doing well in production they can be given detention for that.

---

OniRonin posted...

I don't live with my mom and I don't have any hot wheels. Not everyone is a little kid... I'm not sure why you'd assume I am? I'm actually almost 20.

Almost 20! Wow! That's almost old enough to get your own car loan without a co-signer! Nearly an adult!

---

keyblader1985 posted...

And what does that have to do with whether it should be taught in school?

Are you actually suggesting that we should only learn what people pay for us to learn?

if churches want schools to teach church stuff they can simply pay taxes

How much in taxes do historians pay? Do a way with Social Studies.

they pay the same as everyone else in their income bracket? are there any special tax incentivies for social studies I don't know about

How many people become professional athletes? Just do away with PE.

this is a complete non sequitur. My claim is
'we shouldn't teach students about things if those things are treated as tax exempt'

your assertion is
'not very many people become atheltes, therefore we should not teach pe'

it is not valid.
the valid version of this argument would be 'atheletes don't pay taxes, therefore we should not teach about athletics'. however, this is unsound.

Let's take this a step further. Since students are legally required to attend school anyway and removing the wasteful programs has freed up some time in their schedule there are things they could do that are immediately profitable. Each school could partner with private organizations to produce some of their products. These new classes could even replace detention. Then if the students aren't doing well in production they can be given detention for that.

strawperson. this does not follow at all from what i said. next.

---

dancer62 posted...

Almost 20! Wow! That's almost old enough to get your own car loan without a co-signer! Nearly an adult!

ad hominem. next

---

OniRonin posted...

if churches want schools to teach church stuff they can simply pay taxes

keyblader1985 posted...

And what does that have to do with whether it should be taught in school?

---

undefined posted...

if churches want schools to teach church stuff they can simply pay taxes

undefined posted...

And what does that have to do with whether it should be taught in school?

why should churches have a free ride? other people shouldn't have to pay for them to be taught about if they don't contribute back.

---

OniRonin posted...

this does not follow at all from what i said.

It's about funding schools. Teaching about religions doesn't lead to school funding because religions don't contribute to taxes. Thus resources spent on that activity are a net loss of resources. I'm looking at what other subjects that is true for.

Is the expense spent on PE programs made up for by the taxes collected from professional athletes?
Is the expense spent on teaching history made up for by the taxes collected from historians.

It's not just a matter of whether taxes are collected. It's also a matter of how much was spent on the program and how much the program resulted in collecting more taxes.

Likewise, if the school shouldn't teach a subject with a net loss of resources then the school should have programs that lead to a net increase in resources. Thus my suggestion.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It's about funding schools. Teaching about religions doesn't lead to school funding because religions don't contribute to taxes. Thus resources spent on that activity are a net loss of resources. I'm looking at what other subjects that is true for.

Is the expense spent on PE programs made up for by the taxes collected from professional athletes?
Is the expense spent on teaching history made up for by the taxes collected from historians.

It's not just a matter of whether taxes are collected. It's also a matter of much was spent on the program and how much the program resulted in collected more taxes.

Likewise, if the school shouldn't teach a subject with a net loss of resources then the school should have programs that lead to a net increase in resources. Thus my suggestion.

ok. can you explain how 'schools should not teach things that are a net loss of resources' logically follows (e.g., don't just say they're similar or spring from the same kind of politics, give me a set of logical steps) from the claim i'm making in this topic?

if not, please make your own topic to discuss your idea.

---

OniRonin posted...

why should churches have a free ride? other people shouldn't have to pay for them to be taught about if they don't contribute back.

Other people arent directly paying the school. Just taxes. But why do you think we should only learn about stuff where people are paying taxes. Thats ridiculous. Does that mean if that school has a high paying donor, they should learn only classes that donor wants the children to learn about? Because thats what it sounds like you saying. And if so, thats ridiculous and would be a shit school. And why should a huge chunk of history be cut from the books? A lot of history deals with religion. And what about private schools closely connected with churches? Also, why does it matter if churches pay taxes. The point of learning a little about religion isnt to co very the kids. Its to teach them about different things like different religions, for example. If you want to live in a world without free speech, you go right the fuck ahead. The rest of us will do our best to live in a world without. tyrannical king who stops us from learning because he doesnt like whats being taught.

And SKARDAVNELNATE is probably saying what hes saying because it sounds like you only care about money. It sounds like you want people to have to pay for certain things to be taught is school. And thats a bad idea. What if a company decided to pay massive taxes. Does that mean they should be able to have all history classes replaced with a history of the company? Because if theyre paying massive taxes, we should be learning about them, according to you plan...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Other people arent directly paying the school. Just taxes.

how do you think schools are funded? why does it matter that it goes through taxes?

But why do you think we should only learn about stuff where people are paying taxes. Thats ridiculous.

i already explained why, several times, including in what you quoted

Does that mean if that school has a high paying donor, they should learn only classes that donor wants the children to learn about?
no, unless nobody else is willing to contribute to the school at all

Because thats what it sounds like you saying.
what did I say that implied that?

And what about private schools closely connected with churches?
this topic is about the distribution of public funds. private schools can teach about religious stuff if they want

Also, why does it matter if churches pay taxes.

i already explained why, several times, including in what you quoted

The point of learning a little about religion isnt to co very the kids.
I don't understand what this means

Its to teach them about different things like different religions, for example.
plenty of other interesting things to teach the kids about

If you want to live in a world without free speech, you go right the fuck ahead.

what did i say that cuts against free speech

The rest of us will do our best to live in a world without. tyrannical king who stops us from learning because he doesnt like whats being taught.

ad hominem

And SKARDAVNELNATE is probably saying what hes saying because it sounds like you only care about money.

what did I say that implies I only care about money

It sounds like you want people to have to pay for certain things to be taught is school. And thats a bad idea. What if a company decided to pay massive taxes

I'm pretty sure at this point that you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I never said that paying more in taxes should get you more control over the curriculum. Just that you should have to pay taxes to have a seat at the table.

. Does that mean they should be able to have all history classes replaced with a history of the company? Because if theyre paying massive taxes, we should be learning about them, according to you plan...

please stop accusing me of saying things I never said. If you can't argue against my actual claim, just go post about video games or soemthing.

---

Yep, christianity's impact on history should definitely be ignored in history class

---

OniRonin posted...

how do you think schools are funded? why does it matter that it goes through taxes?

Depends on the school. Public schools are most likely funded by taxes. Private schools vary, though. They can be funded by one, or a combination of, different things, including: tuition (paid by parent), a donor (who funds the school for whatever reason), and even churches (for more religious schools), and many other resources. But it depends on the school...

OniRonin posted...

i already explained why, several times, including in what you quoted

And all you keep saying is they don't pay taxes. But won't explain why that even matters. Why does it matter if they pay taxes or not?

OniRonin posted...

no, unless nobody else is willing to contribute to the school at all

So, it is about money, then. Because you keep saying it's not. But this kind of proves it is...

OniRonin posted...

what did I say that implied that?

By implying that the only reason religion shouldn't have any place is school isn't because they don't pay taxes, so it sounds like a money issue. Therefore, if they were paying taxes (like paying money), it would be ok. So, gatekeeping in the form of money...

OniRonin posted...

this topic is about the distribution of public funds. private schools can teach about religious stuff if they want

So, public schools are allowed to have less knowledge taught because churches don't pay taxes?

OniRonin posted...

i already explained why, several times, including in what you quoted

Yet I still haven't seen a good reason...

OniRonin posted...

I don't understand what this means

I t was suppose to say "convert" instead of "co very".
---

OniRonin posted...

plenty of other interesting things to teach the kids about

Are you fucking kidding me? Haha. History in itself isn't interesting at all. But we still need to learn about it. And while I like math, it isn't interesting for most people, but they still learn. You don't learn based on what's interesting of not. You learn based on what's needed. That's a ridiculous line of thinking...

OniRonin posted...

what did i say that cuts against free speech

By telling schools they should talk about something because you don't want it taught. Religion is a part of history, but you don't want that part taught. You probably don't want the teachers answering questions dealing with religion, either. Even if the student asked about it...

OniRonin posted...

what did I say that implies I only care about money

Taxes, which is money, in the case...

OniRonin posted...

I'm pretty sure at this point that you are intentionally misunderstanding me. I never said that paying more in taxes should get you more control over the curriculum. Just that you should have to pay taxes to have a seat at the table.

So, if they paid very minimum, like even less than a singular person, that would be fine. Like a dollar that covers all the churches in that area. Because that's also a ridiculous form of gatekeeping...

OniRonin posted...

please stop accusing me of saying things I never said. If you can't argue against my actual claim, just go post about video games or soemthing.

That's what you are arguing about. Money. This whole thing seems to be about money. The whole argument is built on churches paying taxes, which means it's built on churches paying money...
---

I think it's important to learn about and discuss all philosophies, religions and schools thought/beliefs as a form of education. Of course, they should be studied without bias or prejudice, but openly and how they affected/continue to affect the world.

---