Bill 44

[sXe_Jinxeh]

Okay, so for all of you non-Albertans, I will fill you in on what this bill is.

Bill 44 was recently passed in Legislature by Ed Stelmach and his Progressive Conservatives, allowing parents to pull their children out of certain classes.

These classes include anything that could involve religion, sexuality, homosexuality, and also includes evolution. Needless to say, it has sparked a lot of controversy.

Some links, if you're interested on the specifics and so you can have some information to debate this:

http://www.canada.com/Controversial+Bill+passes+through+Alberta+legislature/1654390/story.html
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Life/Bill+evolutionary+dead/1564046/story.html
http://www.secalgarynews.com/homepage/albertas-bill-44-a-big-mistake/
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/06/01/edmonton-gay-activists-bill-44.html
http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/columnists/graham_hicks/2009/06/07/9702751-sun.html
http://www.ffwdweekly.com/blogs/klaszus-corner/2009/05/01/bill-44-puts-alberta-back-into-the-middle-ages-former-tory-mla-21/

This is the kind of bill that is easy to debate (as five hours worth of social class over the last month has proven) I'll post my opinion on this kind of educational censorship after a bit. As you can imagine, as an Albertan who would very much be affected by said Bill, I have some opinions.

[Shaun]

I don't have time to read all the things (and my mother's computer is too slow anyway), but let me make sure I understand what the bill proposes: It isn't banning the subjects, just allows parents to pull their children out of certain classes, such as a class on evolution, etc.? Are there regulations on how this is allowed? Meaning, can I pull my student out of any class if I don't like people chewing bubble gum, and thus don't want my child exposed to that? Or does it have guidelines on how it is enforced?

[sXe_Jinxeh]

Anything to do with religion, sexuality or homosexuality. Teachers would be forced to ensure discussions do not go off task, and as soon as anything being studied in the class moved into those areas, students could be removed.

[Shaun]

So it's specific to anything on the subject of religion, homosexuality, or sexuality, or literally ANYTHING that happens to be "off task" or deemed inappropriate or whatever?

[MasterCarlton]

NO! NO! NO!

No child should be dinied the education of a subject just because the parents believe its "inappropiate" I personally believe that children should not be censored to homosexuality, because if we treat it as something "dirty" its gonna evoke hate, and if that child becomes homosexual in later life he/she has the right to know about themselves! And as for religion, I believe all children should have the choice to choose their faith and therefore should be properly educated on many different faiths, whether the child agrees with it or not is their decision no one elses, not even the parents.

[listophergreene]

WARNING: RELIGIOUS REFERENCE!

Even though I have strong views about some of those subjects, I do not think we should be denying children information on them. If you don't know what homosexuality is, how can you call yourself straight? It makes some sense, actually. The same applies to other religions, are you really a Christian if you don't know any other way? Is it a choice you consciously made? Anyways, Christians are supposed to seek knowledge and understanding, and we aren't supposed to be ignorant. This bill sounds like the result of some radical religious folk meddling in the government's business, which can really get messy. I disapprove.

And for those radicals who claim to be of my own kind, this sort of meddling will only remove the conversation about Christianity from the classroom. Whether it's right or not is up to the student, but not even the teacher can deny that it exists, and should therefore be open for discussion.

[Shaun]

My only problem with exposing kids to everything is that it will be difficult to monitor HOW those things are taught. There's a good possibility that certain teachers will abuse their authority by favoring certain things over others (such as Christianity over Islam, etc.).

[listophergreene]

My only problem with exposing kids to everything is that it will be difficult to monitor HOW those things are taught. There's a good possibility that certain teachers will abuse their authority by favoring certain things over others (such as Christianity over Islam, etc.).

True, true, but everyone is a product of their environment anyway, so why not let the students at least learn what they can? An American teacher would be more likely to favor Christianity, and a Middle Eastern educator would probably go for Islam. Regardless, at least they aren't taboo subjects, and at least the students know that they're out there, along with at least a limited understanding of them. I'm not suggesting integrating these subjects into a curriculum, I just find it wrong that they're being censored. Censorship! The nerve...

In America we teach evolution and only evolution. We do this because to many - but not all - scientists, creationism doesn't make sense. Forget integrating the two. Forget the fact that the Big Bang generated a universe from absolutely nothing. For every cause, there is an effect, so what is the cause of the Big Bang? How did that cause get there? Theology can answer this, science cannot, and yet science is allowed to integrate itself into the government and censor its 'enemies'. If they really cared, they would realize that Religion and Science, when the religion is true, do not contradict. I would like for us all to look at what Russia used to be as the Soviet Union: an atheist controlled, communistic, discriminatory, military based government. Christians were persecuted because of their knowledge. This is what Bill 44 sounds like: the beginning of a needless pain that would not end soon enough.

Forgive me for ranting with such emotional vigor, I feel a need to express my views that becomes stronger as I realize how few people seem to share them in public.

[Shaun]

I'm not suggesting integrating these subjects into a curriculum, I just find it wrong that they're being censored. Censorship! The nerve...

There's a difference between censorship and separation of Church and State. BIG difference.

In America we teach evolution and only evolution. We do this because to many - but not all - scientists, creationism doesn't make sense. Forget integrating the two. Forget the fact that the Big Bang generated a universe from absolutely nothing. For every cause, there is an effect, so what is the cause of the Big Bang? How did that cause get there? Theology can answer this, science cannot, and yet science is allowed to integrate itself into the government and censor its 'enemies'. If they really cared, they would realize that Religion and Science, when the religion is true, do not contradict. I would like for us all to look at what Russia used to be as the Soviet Union: an atheist controlled, communistic, discriminatory, military based government. Christians were persecuted because of their knowledge. This is what Bill 44 sounds like: the beginning of a needless pain that would not end soon enough.

Wow, this is really ignorant.

First: The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution is a biological theory that ONLY accounts for how life evolved after the moment of creation (whatever that creation may have been). That is it. It does not touch on cosmology/astronomy/astrophysics (i.e. The Big Bang), nor does it deal with how life can to exist (i.e. creation), but only have life adapted and changed through time.

Science does not deny the existence of God; neither does evolution. Science simply does not need God in order to operate. Science is based on the way things ARE, not on what they might be or what you believe them to be. Nothing in science is "true" until verified with observation, testing, evidence, etc. This is not true of religion, which only requires you to believe it in order to exist. While the two may coexist, they are very much separate things that operate on entirely different modes of thought.

Russia was not an "atheist controlled, yadda yadda." Stalin's thoughts were practically a religion onto itself. Learn your bloody history. Christians weren't persecuted for knowledge; they were persecuted because Stalin was a crazy bastard who despised what Christianity stood for. Hitler was a crazy bastard too. And so were all those guys who started the dozens of crusades who were Christians. It's called human nature. That's what we do. It's wrong, but we do it and it doesn't matter whether you're atheist, democratic, communist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. We're a horrible species with built in genetic impulses that make us want to do horrible things. Some of us are able to control those impulses; some of us are not. Don't play the "oh Atheists did this" game with me. Because Christianity has as evil a history as anything else.

Theology actually cannot answer the questions of the Universe. It provides an easy out for people, because now all you have to do is say "God did it" and nothing else. To resort to that whenever you don't understand something is essentially to censor knowledge itself. We must always question our existence and the rules of nature and never give in to simplistic answers that do not need to be quantified by evidence. A book written by old, racist, masochistic, genocidal, sexist white men is not evidence. You can believe in God all you want, but don't stifle the potential of the human mind by saying "God did it." Strive for more than that.

There are two primary reasons why Creationism is not taught in schools in the U.S. and in most places:
1. It is not a scientific theory. It has no basis in science or fact because it has provided absolutely ZERO empirical or observational evidence to support its "theories." All it has done thus far is claim things are true based on a religious belief and then say "that is a theory." That is not how theories work in science. Look it up. Theories arise due to complex scientific processes that involve exceptional levels of study, peer review, etc. This is how it is.
2. Creationism is a religious idea. Separation of Church and State requires that any facility funded by the federal government must remain entirely neutral on the subject of religion. This means that there are no school sanctioned prayers, no Bible classes, etc. in schools. The same is true for any Muslim, Jewish, etc. activities. Such things may be personal, but not sanctioned by the school. Since Creationism operates on a foundational religious principle (i.e. the belief in an intelligent creator (God) or something along those lines), it cannot be taught in public schools. Anywhere that does so is essentially violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And with that, I'm out.

[listophergreene]

I think I misunderstood the bill. After I re-read it, I realized that I had taken a different idea on what it meant, so my technicalities were off. I still believe that religion should be open for discussion though.

Now then, this is going to get a bit off of the original topic, but it's part of the ongoing debate. It also keys in via several important routes.

Russia was not an "atheist controlled, yadda yadda." Stalin's thoughts were practically a religion onto itself. Learn your bloody history. Christians weren't persecuted for knowledge; they were persecuted because Stalin was a crazy bastard who despised what Christianity stood for. Hitler was a crazy bastard too. And so were all those guys who started the dozens of crusades who were Christians. It's called human nature. That's what we do. It's wrong, but we do it and it doesn't matter whether you're atheist, democratic, communist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. We're a horrible species with built in genetic impulses that make us want to do horrible things. Some of us are able to control those impulses; some of us are not. Don't play the "oh Atheists did this" game with me. Because Christianity has as evil a history as anything else....that was great.
Perhaps you are right, I have not studied Russia very much, I know only from stories. And I refute that last statement, Catholicism has a terrible history. I can hardly stand the crusades and how Catholicism said 'we are the only church, we are the original church' and everyone believed them because they didn't know any better. I can go into tremendous detail to support this view, but I will not. Also, Christians do not intentionally kill, have you read the Bible? All of the hypocritical pretenders out there give Christianity a bad reputation.

Theology actually cannot answer the questions of the Universe. It provides an easy out for people, because now all you have to do is say "God did it" and nothing else. To resort to that whenever you don't understand something is essentially to censor knowledge itself. We must always question our existence and the rules of nature and never give in to simplistic answers that do not need to be quantified by evidence. A book written by old, racist, masochistic, genocidal, sexist white men is not evidence. You can believe in God all you want, but don't stifle the potential of the human mind by saying "God did it." Strive for more than that.Yeah, right *sarcasm*. I've tested this time and time again, and you can contest it yourself if you want, but good luck *not sarcasm*. I've questioned all of those things time and time again, and Christianity is the only thing that comes through. Personally, atheism is ignorance. To believe that in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded, is dumb. Then all of a sudden everything magically fell into place so that we are the exact distance from the sun for life, and then RNA bubbled up from the deep and gave birth to primordial soup. Yum. This soup could reproduce itself and mutated over millions of years to become those intelligent complex beings called humans. Who is being ignorant here?

I know how the universe began: God. I know how God got there: he always was there. A paradox? I don't have time to explain right now, but it really isn't. And that "God did it" applies to some things, but not others. That's as dumb as 'the devil made me do it'. We are educated people, you know.

I'm not stifling anything, I agree with all of science, but not atheistic theories of the big band and evolution. Yes, they can be integrated into Christianity, but they don't have to be because Christianity is sufficient. You said to not stifle things, but if God created the world, aren't we wasting our time with those two stupid theories? I heard Darwin took back his theory after he studied the human eye and all of its complexity. Look it up on Wikipedia sometime, and you'll understand. Tell me that came from a unicellular organism suddenly mutating into a multicellular one, which eventually developed the sexes and all of that. It's absurd, and society today is so ignorant that they just don't care and Atheism is the easy way out.

Phew, there's more but I quit for now. Hit my 'theories' with all you got; if they're true, they'll stand. If they fall, you'll be the first to make a valid point against them. Also, I hope I made my standpoint clear on the "God did it" argument. That disgusted me.

No hard feelings ;)

BTW - Yes, I know I'm sort of getting baited. My problem was that I was misunderstood, not that other people didn't agree with me. As long as we understand each other, it works out.

[Shaun]

listophergreene: You are by far one of the most ignorant people I have ever met. You did not just say "look it up on Wikipedia" for something as complex as the freaking eye, did you?

You desperately need to educate yourself. I can't even begin to deal with the amount of idiocies spouted in your post. It's completely and utterly devoid of reason, has absolutely no foundation in anything that can be verified and proven.

I'm just going to let it go, because I've argued about this stuff all before, and it's not worth my time. Clearly public education has failed you and I should devote more time to protecting future children from being ruined.

[Carraka]

Toff, go ahead and read the religious threads in other places in the debate forum. That should tell you everything that everyone here wants to say (except me, 'cuz I never say anything), and then you can decide whether it's worth it continuing the debate when most likely everyone's just going to dig in and rehash what they've already said.

Also, Wikipedia is user-edited. Can't be trusted.

[MasterCarlton]

[QUOTE=listophergreene;81198]I think I misunderstood the bill. After I re-read it, I realized that I had taken a different idea on what it meant, so my technicalities were off. I still believe that religion should be open for discussion though.

Now then, this is going to get a bit off of the original topic, but it's part of the ongoing debate. It also keys in via several important routes.

...that was great.
Perhaps you are right, I have not studied Russia very much, I know only from stories. And I refute that last statement, Catholicism has a terrible history. I can hardly stand the crusades and how Catholicism said 'we are the only church, we are the original church' and everyone believed them because they didn't know any better. I can go into tremendous detail to support this view, but I will not. Also, Christians do not intentionally kill, have you read the Bible? All of the hypocritical pretenders out there give Christianity a bad reputation.

Hate to break it to ya but christianity was probably the biggest killer in medievil europe next to the plague, you said ONE thing against the church and you were arrested and burnt to death! Oh and need I remind you of the witch hunts, innocent men, women and even children where burnt alive because they acted wierd, such as limp, because as we all know limping is a sign of paralysis which is a sign of God punishing you which meant you were a spawn of the devil, god bless the bible. Also if you had a mole on your face that was an extra nipple to feed the devils monsters blood, cause God didn't make us with moles! NA we where made shiny white. Here is a quote from a book labelled "strange laws of old England"

"Abominable blasphemers and damnable heresies were seen as such a problem that parliament set aside wednesday 10 March 1647 as a day of public humiliation. When that did not work a law was passed on 2 May 1648 making denying the Trinity, or doubting that the books of Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecharia and Malachi in the old testiment were not the word of God, punishable by death, without benefit of clergy." So don't tell us that it was the minority of christians just given us a bad name, these men who passed these laws where powerful and supported men! And certainly where not pretenders.

Yeah, right *sarcasm*. I've tested this time and time again, and you can contest it yourself if you want, but good luck *not sarcasm*. I've questioned all of those things time and time again, and Christianity is the only thing that comes through. Personally, atheism is ignorance. To believe that in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded, is dumb. Then all of a sudden everything magically fell into place so that we are the exact distance from the sun for life, and then RNA bubbled up from the deep and gave birth to primordial soup. Yum. This soup could reproduce itself and mutated over millions of years to become those intelligent complex beings called humans. Who is being ignorant here?

Oh yea and the story of a all powerful being who could do ANYTHING he wished, sacrificed his own son painfully to save us from every sin except disbelief is really that much more believable. Also why just christianity? All other organised religion follows basically the same story sooo, what makes them any less believable?

I know how the universe began: God. I know how God got there: he always was there. A paradox? I don't have time to explain right now, but it really isn't. And that "God did it" applies to some things, but not others. That's as dumb as 'the devil made me do it'. We are educated people, you know.

I'm not stifling anything, I agree with all of science, but not atheistic theories of the big band and evolution. Yes, they can be integrated into Christianity, but they don't have to be because Christianity is sufficient. You said to not stifle things, but if God created the world, aren't we wasting our time with those two stupid theories? I heard Darwin took back his theory after he studied the human eye and all of its complexity. Look it up on Wikipedia sometime, and you'll understand. Tell me that came from a unicellular organism suddenly mutating into a multicellular one, which eventually developed the sexes and all of that. It's absurd, and society today is so ignorant that they just don't care and Atheism is the easy way out.

Wikipedia can be editted by anyone, I could easily go on the Jesus Christ wiki and state he was a cabbie from the future. So please do not use wikipedia as a reference for an argument.

[listophergreene]

I am going to withdraw from this debate. Before I go, I would like to point out a few things:

1. I did not say that you should use Wikipedia to study the eye. I used Wikipedia because it was a handy example. Shaun supported my reasoning that the eye was complex though, so we are all in understanding there. Heavens no, don't trust Wikipedia for anything, especially not the religion articles.

2. Ignorance is bliss... so why am I not satisfied with "God did it."? I refuse to be called 'ignorant' by someone who filled the rest of their post with like insults. I have tested every one of my beliefs to proven science. Theories aren't included in that for a reason, and yes, I know what a theory in science is. Ignorance is refusing to learn, which is why I remain confused as to why I am the ignorant one, when I understand other people's points of view, I just don't agree with them. This argument stems from other people not understanding my point of view, and disagreeing with it anyway.

3. I don't care about those people who called themselves Christians but didn't follow the Bible. Can anybody say 'contradiction'? Relating me to them is, in a way, like saying all atheists are extremely intelligent. It is a stereotype that is so common people actually mistake it for proven fact. Regardless, stereotypes are frowned upon because there are always exceptions. Even if every other 'Christian' in the world was immoral, would that make me immoral as well?

These scriptures should help you understand what Jesus, the foundation of Christianity, thought about 'pretend Christians' like those you mentioned:

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

4. I will not disclose my beliefs of God in this thread, at least not the complex ones. Read and learn:
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

This is exactly what is happening now. The more I share, the more I get attacked. My 'pearls' of insight are being trampled under your feet, whilst you turn on me and attack me for who I am. What did I do to deserve this? I shared my point of view. This was a debate.


I wish you all the best talking about Bill 44, and I'm sorry I couldn't have been more helpful in this discussion. I also would like you to know that I meant no harm in sharing with you. Also, I admit that I am not perfect, but I do not kill people for not agreeing with me. I felt provoked, and took the bait to retaliate; I apologize. I do know atheists who have had intelligent religion/spirituality conversations with me without being ignorant. PM me with questions and such, I can't come back here.

[Shaun]

listophergreene: You just proved to me that you have no idea what a scientific theory is. By your logic the vast majority of science would be discounted from your thinking precisely because they are theories. That includes gravity. You're not helping yourself here by continuously spouting these sorts of fallacies. I have no idea what science you're using to prove your beliefs, because such science doesn't exist.

The problem isn't that you shared your point of view, it's that your point of view is literally so absurdly ignorant of reality that it's hardly worth debating with. It would take me hours just to write a single post to adequately refute the things you have said, which are monumentally biased and inconsistent with truth (and which I have pretty much said elsewhere. This is a problem I have with the vast majority of fundamentalist religious people, because they are so entrenched in what they have been taught or brainwashed to believe is reality that trying to point out how things really are is like trying to explain to a two-year-old why Barney isn't real.

And you basically committed the cardinal sin by bringing Wikipedia into any discussion. Not only that, you used Wikipedia to bring in Creationist propaganda that has been repeatedly refuted by scientists who actually know what they are talking about, people who have spent their lives studying biology, who I trust far more than someone who tells me that dinosaurs lived with human beings and that any evidence to the contrary is a trick by God to test our faith.

And of course the eye is complex. Life in general is complex, but complexity doesn't mean that God did it or that God exists. The problem with religious beliefs is that they are nothing but religious beliefs. They can never be anything else, no matter how hard you try. You can never know that God exists; you only believe it. Until hard, verifiable evidence of God's existence is brought forth, tested, and proven true and actual, such things will remain firmly in the domain of belief. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is a stark difference between how science operates and how religion operates. One is based entirely upon what can be tested, observed, and proven, while the other only requires a leap of blind faith.

And you're edits didn't make your post nicer. You essentially called those of us who don't share your beliefs "dogs" and "pigs." But I'm okay with that. It doesn't bother me one bit. What bothers me is that so many people can be sucked into something that is so logically illogical. It makes me realize that the only reason we survive as a species is because of the handful of intelligent individuals who see the world for what it actually is. They are the ones who got us to the moon, who brought us the car, who discovered cures for diseases, who continue to prove that stem cell research is one of the most important medical discoveries in human history, and who will bring us out of whatever climate craziness we're going through now. And they'll do so through hands-on action.

[Bowie20049]

Uhm...I think we strayed from the topic (Bill 44)

[Shaun]

Yes, we did, and I am against the bill in principle.