France places a ban on religious head cover in schools

One other thing :

Banning religous symbols could be seen as a promotion of atheism, which is also a belief based on faith .. even though most atheists prefer to think otherwise. Therefore, the whole matter should be left up to the individual, as Alana said. The state has no business dictating either that religous symbols must be worn, or that they cannot be worn.

Any faith based belief (including atheism!) must be left alone and not embraced or prohibited by the state. Period.

With Regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Yeah, that enormous mountain of supporting scientific evidence doesn't mean anything. There's a reason evolution is taught in science classes and "faith" is not. If evolution isn't a fact, someone tell god to stop changing the flu virus every year.

Claiming that allowing religious symbols in public schools doesn't promote religion, but not allowing them somehow promotes atheism strikes me as a bit... well... insane.

I think the uniform idea is a good one.
For the reasons that you stated, Chip.

But also realize that while the schools CAN institue a uniform code....they CANNOT stop people from wearing with it...crucifixes(sp), religious head gear/scarfs, or any other religiously significant symbol (this is a splitting of hairs point..as in my highschool uniform code..we were BY LAW allowed to wear crosses, stars of david. etc....as long as they were of an acceptable size)


Please excuse the Darwin's fish reference...I was groping for a more atheistic symbol..and realize now that I am guilty of crossing arguments as well
as stereotyping.

Please forgive,

Evolution and the belief thereoin isnt the same as aethism.

I clarify.
I hope you do the same.

~Alana

Please cite the evidence to support the claim "there is no god". Note that evolution does not support any such claim. It merely refutes the literal interpretation of specific portions of specific religous texts, which is an entirely different matter altogether. The difference is not even subtle.

Disproving one particular subset of a particular doctrine of *religon* does nothing to support the claim "there is no god".

I look forward to your reply.

With Regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Don't be too hard on yourself Alana I think you were more right than you think. The darwin fish is intended to poke fun at the jesus fish, so it actually does promote atheism. If religious symbols were banned it would seem only reasonable not to allow the darwin fish either. The whole idea of not allowing these kinds of things in public schools is to avoid encouraging any "us versus them" type thing and to teach kids to see their peers as their equals, regardless of what belief system they belong to. That's how I see it anyway.

Prohibiting something is a de facto way of saying it is either wrong or otherwise a Bad Thing. Therefore I submit that banning religous symbols makes the statement that religon is wrong, thus supporting atheism.

With Regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Around here we're very relaxed about religion. It's like, everyone's catholic, but hardly anyone really is. People are catholic by default and so they dont pay much attention to it =)
Some people, though few, wear crucifixes. Mostly out of fashion. In my entire life I have met 2 or 3 ppl that actually went to church on a regular basis. The few times I've been to a church it was mostly empty and the few people there were really old.
My guess is if we got a jewish or muslim kid in a class, he would prolly be a hero, just because he was different, and the 90% of dumb people around me go "oooh shiny!" at anything "different" =)
Oh and btw, "religion" is part of the syllabus in our biology class. We have a chapter on "other theories" where we talk about the ancient greeks, lamarck's catastrophe theory and stuff, which also briefly discusses christianity and the modern theory of intelligent design - and yeah we're tested on it
Actually we even had a tree diagram classifying all the theories.

You're absolutely correct Ant. You can't prove it absolutely. Science doesn't work that way. All you can do is look at the evidence there is and the theories it supports and draw your own conclusions. Please cite the proof (any proof) that there is one. Evolution and atheism are not the same thing. There is a huge amount of evidence to support evolution. And (to me) since the evidence supports so many things that are contrary to religious teachings, and supports almost nothing that in any way proves religious teaching, I choose to believe there is no God. I find that requires far less blind faith than believing there is one. Your mileage may vary.

Why do you assume that neutrality promotes one thing or the other? The only things that should be taught in public schools are science, the scientific method, rationalism, and critical thinking skills, and other factual data and theories with sufficient evidenciary proof.

The dabate about whether there is or is not a god has no place in public schools. Beliefs that go beyond science and into the realm of something that requires a leap of faith (and yes, atheism is included in that) belongs in the home. You can only teach facts or things backed by reasonable evidence.

The only exception would be in elective classes that cover religion, mythology, and other belief systems. The key word there being "belief." If you want to raise your children to be a christian or a muslim, they'd have to be a pretty damn weak minded kid if going 7 hours a day without a religious symbol hanging around their neck would somehow undermine that.

If the intelligent design people (aka creationists) ever actualy come up with valid supporting evidence through the scientific method, then by all means it should be taught. That has never happened despite the clever name change. The evidence that "creation scientists" cite are things like claiming that the grand canyon is proof of the biblical flood, however scientific fact completely refutes it since erosion like that is in no way possible in the time frame they suggest, and there's not a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

Public schools do NOT teach that there is no god, despite the irrational paranoia of religious people.

> Why do you assume that neutrality promotes one thing or the other? The only things that should be taught in public schools are science, the scientific method, rationalism, and critical thinking skills, and other factual data and theories with sufficient evidenciary proof.

There are people who consider that rationalism is just as much a religion, an opinion, as, say, Christianity, but is misdirected, that is to say heretical.

I can't, which is why I am agnostic. Agnosticism is better suited for those of us who embrace the scientific method, IMO.



Agreed. It's a Red Herring for the sake of this discussion, but I still agree.



Perhaps, but it does indeed take a certain amount of blind faith to believe an unprovable concept as the absolute truth. Again, this is why I am agnostic. It takes no faith at all to accept some things as being beyond the ability of human understanding at this time. Atheism, like religon, does take faith ...



Banning is not nuetrality. Nuetrality would imply hands off and not having an opinion one way or the other.

By your definition, many topics of theoretical physics could not be taught or mentioned in public schools because there is not a sufficent body of proof to support the theories. That is not to say that religon should be taught. However, the issue of what should be taught is another Red Herring. We were discussing the act of disallowing students from wearing culturally diverse articles of clothing.



Straw man. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate to prohibit the free practice of religon. I maintain that it is not consistant with the ideals of democracy, and indeed contrary to the First Ammendment.



Red Herring. We are not talking about what should be taught in public schools, but instead whether students should be extended the freedom to express belief in theories which are neither provable or disprovable.
Theories like atheism.



Never said they did, but even so this is a Straw Man.

I assert that:

1. The state has no business dictating support for or against any particular faith based system of belief, like atheism or a particular religon.

2. Banning students from wearing religous symbols in school is de facto promotion of atheism, or at a minimum contrary to #1.

3. Promotion of free thought is at least as important as regurgitation of sterile facts, therefore it is both unreasonable as well as detrimental to prohibit such expression.


With regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Anta... your posts are unfortunately based on a classic (and regrettably very common) misconception.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any sort of divine power. 'A' a prefix meaning 'without' and 'theism' meaning the belief in God(s).

Atheism does not say 'there is no God.' Atheism says 'we don't buy it.'

1 - agreed.

2 - completely disagree. Teaching that there is no god would be de facto promotion of atheism. Not taking a side one way or the other is exactly that... not taking a side. I think people make a huge mistake (or a giant leap in logic) when they say that banning religious (or atheist) symbols is promotion of atheism. It's a promotion of neutrality and encouraging kids to be equals, rather than branding themselves as one thing or another.

3 - agree partly. "Free thought" isn't necessarily a good thing. It is important to teach critical thinking skills.

There are Muslim women in this world who wear headscarves and shorts at the same time. The headscarf is as much a cultural artifact as a religious one. Should a person who wants to wear a headscarf be denied, on account of it being used as a religious symbol? What if they are wearing it because it's their style?

Corwin Weber said:


Is that not disbelief in god then? Are you saying is that atheists do accept that there might be a god after all, but they merely suspect that is not the case? Or do they in fact believe that there is no god?

Chip Midnight said:


I suspect we might have to agree to disagree on this one. I maintain that forced nuetrality is not nuetrality at all, but instead conformist. It may not necessarily promote atheism but it does send the message that their beliefs are not permitted - whther that is the intended message or not. It breeds resentment of the state and rebellion, not nuetrality.

Chip Midnight said:


I am flabbergasted by this statement. While I agree that it is important to teach critical thinking techniques, free thought should be encourgaged, lest we stifle our future artisans and philosophers before they have a chance to blossom. Suppressing free thought will also breed resentment and rebellion. Remember, we are talking about humans here.

I suspect we have reached an impasse in our discussion. Unless you have something further to add or elaborate on, perhaps we should agree to disagree on this particular matter and celebrate our ability to discuss sensitive issues such as these in a rational manner

With regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Well I'm talking more about the meat and potatos classes here. Free thought (not to be confused with "free thought" as often used as a name for atheism) is great and should be encouraged in art, creative writing, philosophy (to an extent), music and other areas... it's not exactly helpful in math, science, language, geography, etc. And judging by the "creative" use of spelling and grammar on this and other forums, I'd rather have my kids get the nuts and bolts down before encouraging them to go off on flights of fancy



That we can definitely agree on

In my case, yes. It essentially turns into disbelief in any sort of god. Where I disagree with you is the tired old saw that atheism requires 'faith.' This is a classic argument, and one that falls flat on its face unless one confuses 'atheist' with 'antitheist.' Atheism, not being an affirmative belief but rather the lack of an affirmative belief, requires no faith. In fact it requires the absense of fatih.

It's the demand that someone that claims 'God exists' provide proof, and the refusal to believe in the absense of that proof. This only requires 'faith' if you assume the existance of a god, which is itself unproven.

(It's also a common tactic used by theists in arguments against anyone in the secular community, not just atheists... 'well it takes more faith to believe that God doesn't exist than it does to believe that he does!' They never can clearly explain why this should be the case tho...)

I suspect we are juggling semantics here. Allow me to clarify my thoughts on the matter.

Let us for example take the question "Is there a god?" There are 3 possible answers :
A. Yes
B. No
C. Not enough information to determine

Both answers A and B require faith because there is no way to perform an experiment to prove or disprove that belief. Suppose I present the hypothosis that the Big Bang was the act of a being living in a higher dimension. Due to the lack of empirical evidence coupled with the lack of any means to test this hypothosis, there is no possible way to state with certainty that I am correct .. nor is there any way to state that I am incorrect. Therefore to actually maintain that it is or is not true requires belief beyond what is available through the scientific method ... aka unsubstantiated faith.

It is only reasonable to say "there is insufficient evidence to form an opinion on the matter". Anything else requires belief beyond what can be proven. That, my friend, is faith, all semantics aside.

With regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Untrue. There is also the option of 'I refuse to believe or form an opinion based on the available evidence, and I refuse to accept explanations that are by their very nature intentionally unprovable.'

Does it require faith to believe that there are no pink and purple polka dotted unicorns dancing on the rings of Saturn? I think not. There are those of us who see the idea of some all powerful being that can create the universe through force of will alone, that knows everything that happens and STILL finds time to worry about what I do with my genitals and with whom I do it with to be just as ludicrous.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

Not sure how your genitals come into play here, unless you are confusing religous doctrine with the discussion of god.

We can easily dismiss pink unicorns on saturn as silly because we know a bit about the conditions on saturn. We know nothing, however, about the origin of the universe. The idea that it was the act (intentional or otherwise) of a higher dimensional being is not nearly as farfetched as ring hopping unicorns, which are basically a red herring.

I think the issue here is the definition of god ... while it may be silly to think of an old man in the sky who somehow has interest in your genitals, it is not nearly as silly to propose that the Big Bang was the work of a sentient being. After all, we know nothing about what lies beyond our 3 dinky dimensions ... and when dealing with such a large unknown, stating anything definitively as a fact takes belief beyond what can be proven, especially when there is math that suggests that higher dimensions may indeed exist. It either takes faith or tunnel vision. I give the benefit of the doubt and call it faith.


But I dont believe or disbelieve. I simply allow for possibility and ackowledge the ignorance of humans.


With regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

If the only way you can define god is to render him/her/it/all of the above so distant as to be meaningless, then what's the point?

Distancing yourself from 'religious doctrine' is another tactic... and in the end it doesn't work. COULD there be some all powerful creator figure out there? Sure, it's a big universe.

But if it's only peripherally aware of humans.... then who cares? Deism might just as well be atheism. All it does is go from 'we don't believe your god assertation' to 'god exists but it really doesn't matter.'

I suspect at our core, we "believe" very similar things. As to why bother? Well, for me, I just like to know and speak the truth insomuch as I possibly can. It's a boon and a bane I suppose.


It's not a tactic. It is simply how I am. Remember, I am agnostic and am not arguing "for" god or "against" god ... I simply maintain that is is just as silly to state definitively there is no god as as it is to state definitively that there is.

Why not? That was the crux of my argument - that there could be a god. Nothing more, nothing less.



I guess we do agree after all.

With regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Not really.... you seem to think that the fact that something could be remotely possible (IE several hundred billion to one against) means that it should have some relevance in people's lives. I don't.

I also make the distinction that the fact that it's remotely possible that there's some sort of 'Q' out there doesn't give any sort of human religious group, (who endorse a concept that has conclusively been proven wrong) any sort of say in my life.

With all due respect, I never once brought any of those issues into the conversation at all. I dont know why you want to include my comments with the teachings and beliefs of religous groups when I have gone out of my way to seperate the two.

I agree that religous groups should not have a say in your life, nor in mine. I never said anything to the contrary, so once again I dont see how you can imply that somehow has any relevance whatsoever. Usually the fundies are the ones who produce boats full of red herrings.

That being said, it is obvious that we have reached the point where continuation of the conversation will not gain anything for either of us. Therefore I propose we agree to disagree, or at least I will agree to acknolwedge that you think you disagree with me

With Regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Chip Banning someone wearing a headscarf is not neutrality, thats taking a definite action, saying do as you wish is neutral.

(smack me if I jumped in and misunderstood what you meant, perhaps you are on a tangent and not talking about the issue of the ban anymore.)

JV