Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Patton Oswalt Rips Bill Maher u0026 Richard Dawkins" video.

Patton has a great point. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have become complete trolls, especially Dawkins. Maher was never fun or smart, Dawkins was and intelligent person a couple of decades ago but took the atheist thing and ran with it. It has become annoying. So you are atheist, so what? You have turned it into a religion. You have turned it into what you were so against. Congrats. Patton has a point, Maher and Dawkins are like Fred Phelps. Unlike Phelps Dawkins has had published books and Maher has a silly little show. Patton is correct on the war issue. It is created by unstable people. Even without religion there will still be war. I have never heard of Patton Oswalt but I will have to say what he just said I feel that I at least agree with him on this issue.
4
Ryan Swanson They are an unstable idiot if they commit suicide.
3
zBorderPatrol How so? Suicide is a very selfish thing to do. Most people who do it don't have bad lives at all. They are just greedy.
2
Siolfor80 What private school is federally funded? A private school that receives tax dollars does so for specific reasons, for example in paying for a teacher to teach a special needs student. Not a single tax dollar goes towards teaching religion in private schools. Plus, what is wrong with teaching creationism in schools? As long as it isn't required then so what.
1
Siolfor80 If a private institution receives general funds then it has to follow the constitution. But in private schools the receive specific funds, like, what I said before, if a student needs a translator or an aid if they are a special needs student. --------If creationism is taught in an elective course outside of the science classroom then that isn't any different then offering a course on the Japanese culture and history. Creationism isn't science and thus should remain out of a science classroom, but that doesn't mean it can't be taught. But keep in mind that just because I say it isn't bad to teach creationism in schools I am one, not saying itshould be mandatory because it shouldn't, and two, I am not saying it should be a part of the science curriculum because it isn't science. It is no different then reading Romeo and Juliet at that point. _________According to law you don't haveto teach all religion. It would be great but you don't have too. If there is an interest in it and the local school district produces the funds to offer the course as an elective then great. Now if tax dollars are being spent on it you have an argument there, but if the local community raises money to get someone to teach the class it can be an elective at that point. No different then offering Spanish courses but not German courses. __________Schools are about allowing children to explore and see what is out there in the real world. Creationism is one belief they can learn in schools or study just for interest. Schools have kids read The Scarlet Letter which provides nothing in terms of "facts" but it is a different change of pace and can strike interest to some students. Same with art classes and music classes. If there is an interest in learning about creationism and there is someone willing to teach it then that can actually improve education. One of the problems with our education system is that we are too focused on teaching "facts", forcing it down our children's throats to just regurgitate back. And we wonder why they don't learn anything.
1
Siolfor80 Sorry for lack of paragraphs, for some reason youtube is not letting me make paragraphs even though I have tried constantly
1
Scriveners Vault What am I confused on? If a school wants to teach creationism that is fine as long it isn't required and isn't in a science classroom.And name me one right that straights have and that gays don't. This is my problem with people on the left, they arbitrarily pick what is a right and what isn't when our system of solving issues are listed in the constitution.
1
Siolfor80 You didn't link a video
1
Siolfor80 The constitution states the establishment of a religion. Teaching a religion if the local community supports it and can find someone to teach it, and there is enough interest amongst the students then there is nothing illegal in teaching religion in a public school. You just can't make it required. Teaching religion in schools is a way to look at other cultures, other philosophical beliefs, and history in our world. It can also build tolerance which is something liberals say they support.
1
Siolfor80 They are not promoting a religion. Promoting will be making the course required. But if there is an interest in the course then there is nothing wrong in offering such course. It becomes a problem when they say offer a course in Christianity and they have a teacher and enough students taking it, but then a group of students want a course in Buddhism offered and there is someone willing to teach it but the school denies it, then they are picking favors and that is when there is a problem.
1
Siolfor80 They won't be teaching all religions for the same reason why not every school teachers French but would teach Spanish. Or not every school teaches AP courses, or calculus, or Russian history and so on. There simply isn't a teacher available to teach it or interest in the student body. There is nothing unconstitutional in teaching a religion in schools as long as it isn't being required and remains an elective. You do have an argument on if the teacher is being funded by tax dollars and I will agree with that. But if the local community raises money to pay for a teacher to teach a religion course in school and an elective, then it isn't unconstitutional.
1
Siolfor80 It isn't an all or nothing situation. 1. Students being susceptible to peer and public pressure means nothing. That can be related to several instances. That can be related to high school sports. So should we ban high school sports? Students should learn to deal against peer pressure.2. In what religion to discuss, it depends on what knowledge the teacher has and what the students are interested in. This will be an elective course. Time and resources are limited and it will be great to teach all religion. But if the students don't want it then that is their choice in an elective class.3. It is an elective course, they choose to be there to discuss religion.4. I agree with this one. That is why you get someone who knows the subject.5. It is an elective course. If you have no religious faith then don't take the course.6. It is an elective course. If you have a different religious belief then don't take the course.In the end you have to realize that this would be fine as long as it is an elective and not a required course.
1
Siolfor80 It won't be sermon, it will be taught as literature. It may seem like sermon to some but that is very subjective. That is when you are splitting hairs. The teacher may teach it as fact but if you have an interested student in the class it can become discussion if they start asking questions. In the end it would be an elective course, so all you are saying means nothing because the course will be ran depending on the students taking it.
1
Siolfor80 And how are you going to determine if it is being taught as fact or not. It would be an elective course. For the most part it won't be but there will be times it is being taught as fact and the students involved, who wanted to take the course, will go with it.
1
Siolfor80 And once again this is an elective course. If the teacher is being funded by private money then there is nothing illegal about it. They can teach it as fact because the private citizens are funding it and students are taking it as an elective. I wouldn't agree with the action of teaching it as fact or focusing on one religion, but if the money is from private individuals then there is nothing wrong with it.
1
Siolfor80 Yes they will have to get a permit but it won't be hard to get, especially if the local community supports it. The funding issue is tricky in that funding can't to directly teach religion but you can get funding for other specific things. For example, locals raise money to pay for this teacher. The school provides the course and thus the classroom. The funding is going to the room to see to it that the students have a safe and comfortable place to learn a subject. Materials are funded as well by tax dollars. That is something specific. It isn't funds that are being spent to promote the teaching of religion but funds that general classrooms get. That is how it works.The vast majority of funding for education is local, not federal. And I never said religion was fact.
1
Siolfor80 The majority of education if funded by local taxes. At the federal level the federal government mainly funds Title I school. I actually work for the education department and studied it. In one of my first classes my professor asked that question in who funds education most local or federal. Most people guessed federal, the answer was actually local. So based on the fact that you don't know where most funding for education comes from it seems like you don't have much knowledge on the issue.
1
Siolfor80 Google "10 Facts about K-12 Education Funding" and click on the first link, it should send you to the US department of education website. Learn about education funding because it is clear to me you know little about education in this country.
1
Siolfor80 Also, church organizations are allowed to hold meetings in public schools. You can look that law up as well. No different then holding it in a public park.
1
Siolfor80 It depends on the funding. Take, for example, a child who is special ed. If the state were to fund for that student to receive an aid in a private school that school can still teach religion. Same is with a public school as long as funding is specific thus it is shown not to fund religious education. I actually recently took a course in educational law about this. Now federal funding doesn't go to special education, that is a local issue. And also a school receiving federal funds just means it has to go with federal education standards, these days it is CCSS. Once again, I just took a course on this subject. Any public school that receives tax dollars, federal or local, has to follow the constitution unless the tax dollars and shown to be for specific cases. That is how states get away with vouchers for private schools. Once again, I just took a course on this. You can preach to me all you want but it is clear you don't know much about he subject.
1
Pink Program We actually do and then laugh at it, just saying.
1
Pink Program Religion is not science. I really don't care if they teach it as long as one, it is not a required course, and two, it left out of a science classroom. I really don't care what people believe either. Most of what you said are the extremist. Some of the most religious people I have met studied science. One is getting his PhD in physics right now.
1
BloodoftheLotus13 Evolution isn't proven because you can't prove anything in science. Evolution has survived the scientific method but it isn't proven. Creationism isn't science thus we don't teach it in a science classroom. There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism in some elective course outside of science.
1
MAnnaconduit1 Show me the evidence that god doesn't exist. By the way, I am not religious, and I also study science for a living. I feel your comment is so far the dumbest I have read this month.
1
oneslyder Sorry I have more important things to do. I am sure there are a lot of other guys I know that you don't that are celebrity status.
1