Posts by neontinker5

Adam and Eve weren't even real people; ever since evolutionary theory took hold, the whole thing has been treated as a metaphor, so I’m not even sure where the concept of Original Sin comes from. 😁

Two things keep this subject alive in our education system, and they are equally critical: the influence of the Vatican and the sheer stubbornness of a massive, misguided segment of the population against the "establishment." Religious studies don't actually instill positive values in children, even when we discuss values we can all agree on. Kids just sit there staring at the clock, counting down the forty-five minutes until they can escape, while their friends on the other side of the wall are running through the hallways or hanging out in the library just waiting for the bell to ring. That money could be better spent upgrading school facilities or investing in economic innovation. But since it has always been the fashion for conservatives to dig their heels in to protect their own interests, we will continue to have religious instruction in our schools.

Let's be honest: the movie was a dud, and even the book wasn't anything to write home about.
There isn't a shred of tension in either version. Between the lack of intrigue and the predictable plot, I can only describe it as mediocre and uninspired. If you're a die-hard fan of zombie outbreaks and apocalyptic scenarios, you might find something to enjoy here. As for why the President decided to write this particular book? I can only assume he received his first smartphone and decided to take a single decent idea and stretch it way too far.

Kudos to the players who stepped up and held their heads high despite the coaching situation, especially Steve.
I honestly cannot wrap my head around how someone could be foolish enough to publicly doubt his own player right in the middle of a tournament. It’s baffling, especially when you consider that the substitute stepping in for him is completely out of commission. He was kind enough to offer an explanation, though he likely didn't mean it—he doesn't deserve a single percent of the credit here. He’ll probably just hand all those merits over to his wife. ☕

Michelle Nelson4 said:You’ll find all sorts of wild theories floating around here—for instance, the idea that kids attending religious education during an alternative shift are somehow in mortal danger (assuming it's a Catholic course, of course; the others don't count).
Or take the argument that if the government decides it’s perfectly fine to permit prayers and blessings in schools, then we just have to roll with it because "that's the law." It really makes you wonder, though: is there anything a government could decree that *isn't* acceptable? I mean, certain historical examples involving concentration camps immediately come to mind when you hear the phrase "the state has decided"—but hey, who are we to question the state, right?
Besides, we've already learned that a blessing from an atheist is perfectly harmless; nobody ever died from one. I can already see the next big initiative coming from the University of Iowa—mandatory baptisms in maternity wards for little American boys and American girls, since no one has ever been harmed by a baptism, so why bother complaining?

And apparently, moral upbringing only happens during religious studies. If your child doesn't attend those classes, they're destined to hate, steal, lie... (you get the picture)

I’d honestly just put this whole thread on ignore, but I feel like it's important to stay aware of the kind of people we're sharing this supposedly "flawless" country with. It makes it pretty obvious why things are the way they are...

Are you suggesting that because nobody has died from baptism or sprinkling water, we shouldn't worry? What if someone actually contracted an infection from contaminated holy water during a sacrament or a blessing? 😁
Perhaps you should do a bit of research into what those who randomly tested the microbiological quality of holy water in church vessels actually discovered. 😬

Otherwise, it seems moral upbringing only happens during religious education classes. If you don't send your child to those classes, they just hate, steal, and lie... (you get the idea).

Back in my school, kids would tease a classmate specifically because he was Eastern Orthodox. They could have easily picked on him for other things—like being from a low-income family, not being "American" enough, or even just being overweight—but they didn't follow those patterns. He was singled out solely because of his faith. 🙂

Jacob Lewis5 said:All of the above!

I heard some people say religious folks sneak around in the dark to eat toddlers, too. (Seriously though, if you wrote that many negative stereotypes about any other group besides Christians, you’d be getting flagged for hate speech immediately.)
I gotta ask a personal question: You say religious people at work drive you crazy, yet you claim you get along fine when you're alone with them. Then you mention your daughter getting picked on by the "good kids" at school, and you're constantly posting about them... honestly, where do you live? Some tiny town in Boise? Or maybe Spokane? Something clearly triggered some deep-seated resentment in you. If even 10% of what you're saying is true, then please, accept my apologies on behalf of all believers.

If we look at what you wrote in your previous post, you seem to agree that people don't actually study truth; they simply study what they believe to be true. That isn't the same thing. Truth is what aligns with reality—it simply *is*. It exists independently of whatever anyone happens to believe.

Regarding the maintenance costs for these programs, Nice provided those figures at the top of the page. There is really no need for us to keep repeating how much of that funding could be redirected elsewhere.

From a moral standpoint, the idea of Original Sin—the notion that one inherits moral responsibility for an act they didn't personally commit—is completely foreign to any standard ethical system. And frankly, that isn't even the most bizarre claim being made here.

Look at our modern era and how we handle sexual minorities in the US... actually, let's just leave it at that.

But I won't limit myself to just the negatives. School-based religious education is essentially just a more liberal version of what kids learn in church. This gives them an early opportunity to realize that a text is truly in the eye of the beholder. 😁
Furthermore, students still hone essential skills like reading, writing, and drawing...

Jacob Lewis5 said:Seriously though: What’s the actual payoff if we finally pull religious studies out of the public schools? everyone wins, right? ...yeah, that's a pretty lazy answer.

Are you looking for an answer based on objective truth, public finance, morality, or perhaps how it affects specific social groups? 😁

Jacob Lewis5 said:Man, I was just waiting for someone to bring up Nazism. That Hitler guy had massive amounts of knowledge, and under his rule, there were huge leaps in tech, science, and the economy... which just goes to show that raw intelligence doesn't mean squat if the people using it have zero moral backbone. (Seriously, look at any major war—they're always led by the most advanced nations.)

You realize tutoring works because the groups are smaller, right? It's a personalized approach to specific problems. Religion class isn't tutoring. Just give us smaller class sizes where teachers can actually focus on individual students and their struggles—then nobody will even need tutoring. Tutoring that just gathers the whole class again for a "special" math hour is basically just regular school with a different name; it won't change anything. Kids need guidance, they need values, and they need to be taught how to actually use their brains. There are tons of reforms we need, but I don't see why cutting religion classes is the answer.

I didn't explicitly specify what those extra weekly hours would entail, but if they were structured as supplemental tutoring, I believe more parents would choose to enroll their children in those sessions rather than religious studies. At the very least, it saves them time at home; many parents simply lack the time or the educational background to explain complex subjects to their kids. Regarding class sizes, we have to deal with the reality of the current situation, but the core issue lies in the nature of the supplemental hours themselves. These sessions provide the teacher with more time—whether for advanced material or extra practice—regardless of the total class size. Furthermore, these shouldn't just be limited to extra Hertz or Math. We could offer Logic, Philosophy, Civics, or any practical subject focused on skill-building. It would be a far more acceptable way to transition religious studies out of public schools, rather than forcing it through "coercive" means.

Jacob Lewis5 said:I’ve been catching up on the replies to my question from rhino and waterboy

shtefy asked me what the actual loss would be for kids' religious education if we limited instruction strictly to churches? My take? There wouldn't be any loss. But nobody actually asked me the real question: what would the gain be for religious education if we restricted it to just churches ? If I had to answer that—well, I’d say there’s zero gain for spiritual growth if you pull religion out of schools entirely!

Someone brought up the argument that cutting religion frees up more time for other subjects:
-can anyone actually guarantee that an extra hour of math or English will lead to better grades? Honestly, spending more time just memorizing formulas or grammar isn't a winning argument. Kids don't need *more* of that, especially when it's taught the way it currently is. What they actually need is religious studies as a subject where they learn about spiritual values. You'll pick up math (and computer science too) naturally over the years, but moral guidance is being totally ignored by our school system.

-hostility toward the Church
-prejudices
-complaining about "bad schools" that schedule religion right in the middle of the day (I know there are rules against doing that, and I haven't really seen it happen lately)
-the cost of paying teachers (it's cheaper to just let them go to the unemployment office)
-those tired old stories about forcing Christianity on people, which just don't hold water

Honestly, all of that sounds pretty terrible to me. It’s a cocktail of intolerance, lies, and penny-pinching at the expense of teachers who aren't exactly living large anyway, and losing their jobs would be a nightmare (and a pricey one for the government). When I see how people fight against the Church, it makes me appreciate its strong influence on society even more. If this kind of intolerance is the alternative, I'll take the Church—flaws and all. Religious education doesn't threaten anyone, it isn't privileged, and it sure as hell isn't being forced on anyone.

Are you aware that students who struggle with certain subjects often attend supplemental tutoring for exactly one hour a week just to keep up? (And in most cases, that extra help works wonders for their grades). I personally dislike the very notion of taxpayer money being funneled toward religious instructors, but if we were to draft a proposal, it might look like this: parents could choose between sending their child to religion class for two hours a week or opting for one hour of English and one hour of Math. I can guarantee that the number of students enrolled in religion classes would plummet within two years, once those students begin falling behind the other group in terms of knowledge and grades. Even devout parents would eventually rationalize the choice by prioritizing their children's practical success over religious instruction.

Observing how religion classes morally elevate students compared to those who do not attend, I conclude that those students wouldn't lose much in that department. That is merely my impression.

The refs have been knocking out all the heavy hitters just to clear a path for the Frenchmen to cruise into the finals. It’s nothing more than a blatant Qatari conspiracy. ☕

As for Qatar, the fans weren't whistling at the French. :klap:

mistyrider7 said:And when exactly was that "proven"?

Those were late 19th-century attempts to preemptively label individuals as antisocial based on perceived "deevolutionary" traits. Essentially, some people were simply being compared to primates—and no, this wasn't limited strictly to people of color. One of the few who actually delved into this was Charles Goring in his book *The English Convict* (1913). It is important to recognize that while they were influenced by Darwin or Galton, such theories never gained any serious traction beyond the Italian Peninsula.

It appears facial expressions might serve as a predictor for those with antisocial disorders, but that is a far cry from the obvious physiognomic traits one might notice at a glance.

Michelle Evans said:How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? 😁

Let’s call it a suggestion...
We aren't handing out permanent bans just because someone asks, unless the case is truly undeniable. 😁

Just a second... 😁
If you happen to cross the wrong moderator or a handful of random forum members once or twice, does that really mean you're facing a permanent ban? 😲 😁

I have undergone general anesthesia three times so far, along with several instances of local anesthesia; twice during my childhood and once at the start of high school. This coming Tuesday, I am heading to the surgeon for a consultation regarding the removal of an 8mm mole that has shown some concerning changes. It is located in a rather tricky spot right above my heart, and since I am on the leaner side with bone situated directly underneath, what kind of anesthesia would be most appropriate for this procedure? If they decide to go with general anesthesia, does the fact that I’ve already had three prior procedures under general anesthesia matter? Does having that history increase the likelihood of any complications?

This thread was shut down once before because everyone drifted away from the actual subject. It seems to be a pattern here—whenever homosexuality comes up, people immediately pivot to trolling. Honestly, it’s much easier to spin conspiracy theories out of thin air than it is to actually engage with the provided materials. This topic likely got locked because managing the chaos is draining too much of the moderators' time, which is a problem in itself. Breaking the rules carries consequences, yet it feels like the moderators lack the backbone to properly penalize those who repeatedly ignore the guidelines. This isn't about bias; it's about basic enforcement. All this pedantic debate over the etymology of gendered terms is an interesting diversion, but as a logical argument regarding foreign policy II, it is completely irrelevant. Yet, people are treating it like it’s a matter of life and death.

Scott Cruz4 said:That is precisely where the issue lies. It seems some users have their offensive posts simply deleted, while others face penalties for much less controversial comments. We are looking at a clear double standard here; not all forum members are treated equally. As our colleague Sean Cooper65 so aptly explained, there is a reason this is happening.

In my case, Cuka slapped me with a 30-point penalty just because I suggested to another user that they should step away from the forum for the greater good—implying that the two of us share a more global perspective than he does and some extremely uneducated right-winger.🤷
(Not that I didn't earn the penalty, considering the cumulative total 😁 )

Bring on those Americans. 👋

Armstrong is completely useless when it comes to this. 🤣

Go ahead and take a shot at the target, Smith, you absolute maniac... 🤦

Vori. 🤣