Huckabee - CT school shooting due to God being removed from schools

[Dolphan7]

Sorry, but I cannot ever agree with the removal of science and evolution from schools. Evolution isn't a philosophy, it is an observable process that is essential to our understanding of biology. The knowledge of evolution does not degrade one's sense of self-worth. Personally, I find that suggestion both ludicrous and dangerous. But as I stated, I do believe that we need to apply the things that religion does well, mainly community building and support, and apply it to other facets of society.

I am not advocating removing science from schools. Observational science has been a huge asset to mankind. And I am not wanting to turn this thread into an evolution debate. My point is based on evolutionary thinking, which has permeated our schools. We are random acts of accidents with no purpose, no meaning, no hope for anything beyond what we can accomplish in this life. It lends itself to the point you where making earlier about social isolation of our youth. Would you agree with that?

[rob19]

In social studies, wouldn't you think a study and discussion of religions would be beneficial to a microwave generation? Maybe understand what Muslim believe and what Buddhists believe and why? Wouldnt it be a great start towards developing some tolerance?

Nahhhh.....some ACLU suit will pop up from an offended Christian or Atheist claiming Seperation......nothing in that clause endorses seperating your good common sense from educational enlightenment

Of course I think it would be beneficial, but would you have a problem with an atheist teaching your child about Christianity? Or a Muslim? Or vice-versa? Everyone has their biases, & you can see where the problems with this might arise. Would I like to see high-school kids educated about the world's religions? Absolutely. Can it be done in a non-biased fashion on a consistent basis? I don't know that it is.

I took it upon myself to teach myself about the world's religions (something I find most people are ignorant about), & some of the college courses I've taken have briefly touched upon some of the world's popular religions. I think everyone should learn about the world's religions, but I don't know that k-12 public school is the place to do it.

my point is based on evolutionary thinking, which has permeated our schools. We are random acts of accidents with no purpose, no meaning, no hope for anything beyond what we can accomplish in this life. It lends itself to the point you where making earlier about social isolation of our youth. Would you agree with that?

[MoFinz]

Of course I think it would be beneficial, but would you have a problem with an atheist teaching your child about Christianity? Or a Muslim? Or vice-versa? Everyone has their biases, & you can see where the problems with this might arise. Would I like to see high-school kids educated about the world's religions? Absolutely. Can it be done in a non-biased fashion on a consistent basis? I don't know that it is.

I took it upon myself to teach myself about the world's religions (something I find most people are ignorant about), & some of the college courses I've taken have briefly touched upon some of the world's popular religions. I think everyone should learn about the world's religions, but I don't know that k-12 public school is the place to do it.

I wouldnt have a problem with an atheist teaching, as long as he presented all sides to religion and didnt try to influence thought but encouraged debate.

The world would be a better place if more people were as tolerant as you and I, don't you think? But iit might be a little boring without different opinions to spice up the stew
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Mike13]

Agreed, we need Xenu in schools.

[SkapePhin]

I am not advocating removing science from schools. Observational science has been a huge asset to mankind. And I am not wanting to turn this thread into an evolution debate. My point is based on evolutionary thinking, which has permeated our schools. We are random acts of accidents with no purpose, no meaning, no hope for anything beyond what we can accomplish in this life. It lends itself to the point you where making earlier about social isolation of our youth. Would you agree with that?

I think you read far to into it. Most people do not derive their self worth from events they have no control over, and if they are, they are doing it wrong. I also have no desire to turn this into a debate on evolution, but as I stated previously, evolution is not a philosophy. People aren't supposed to look into evolutionary history to find purpose. That being said, if we allow our children to live in ignorance of science, we are only inhibiting their abilities to function at higher levels.

I derive my self worth from what I can control. I can control how I treat others. I can control what I put out into the world. I can control what I can contribute to society. I cannot control where I came from, how I was formed, or my ancestral history. What good would it be to focus on those unchangeable circumstances in order to find my purpose? You create your own purpose, it isn't given to you.

I personally find the processes of evolution to be remarkable and beautiful. It informs my understanding of nature and the universe. With a knowledge that I am every bit as much the same as a snail as I am to a tree or another human allows me to better appreciate others, and act more kindly, and preserve and protect those things. With the knowledge that I AM (and we all are) the environment, and not merely a spectator in some artificial arena surrounded by "other" spectators, I am better able to empathize with not only other humans, but with nature as a whole.

[Awsi Dooger]

I note that we've yet to hear from Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson. Those two are always clever in assigning big picture responsibility. Let's see, Newt blamed liberals and specifically LBJ's Great Society for the Susan Smith incident, then he followed with similar babble after Columbine, and last year's Tuscon shooting of Gabbie Giffords.

This is what I stressed in the Hillary 2016 thread. Republicans may appear to have a deep bench but a big chunk is comprised of nutcases. And the nutcase questions are an inevitable segment of the primary debate, given the current makeup of the GOP electorate. Imagine a high profile shooting during the 2016 primaries, with each candidate asked to comment. You're going to have off the cuff remarks like Huckabee's, even if he's nowhere to be seen. And that defines the party, just like the legitimate rape remarks.

There really should be a right wing pamphlet. When a legitimate rape-type comment shows up, pull out the paragraphs describing what we really meant. Same for mass shootings and the rationale. Can't afford the ad libs.

I'm very consistent. I blame guns. You've got to be a moron to own a gun under the belief it is a protective device. That's the same caliber mindset that thinks voter fraud is even fractionally equivalent to voter suppression. It was scary in this thread when someone actually proposed that the troubled individual should pray to God as opposed to the "ridiculous" notion of banning all firearms.

Give me ridiculous. I know math. I know situational impact. The country would be immeasurably better off in the latter scenario, to the point it wouldn't even be debated within a year, other than the nutcase crew.

[MoFinz]

Yeah Awsi.....except that guns were one of the first rights the forefathers gauranteed, in the second amendment to the Constitution. You dont want a gun, nobodys forcing one on you. Until you can come up with a better reason to take mine than it scares you and we'd all be safer without guns is farcical. Almost half the people in Switzerland own a gun or rifle. Their gun related crime is miniscule. How then do you reason less guns here would equal less crimes, when Switzerland clearly refutes your logic. Think it might be their social mindset? Maybe it's the people, not the guns, committing these crimes, and a well trained and armed law abiding citizen is not the target you or the criminal aims for?

I dont expect to change your mind, but i would appreciate a thoughtful debate.

Addendum:
The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the enumerated right that people have a personal right to own firearms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia.[1]

The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was first used in the text of the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States), although similar legal wording can be found in the 1688 English Bill of Rights which states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense". Beyond the United States of America, the general concept of a right to bear arms varies widely by country, state or jurisdiction.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Pobodys nerfect

[rob19]

You're never going to be able to ban all firearms. Too many people own guns, & there's always a steady demand for them as well. It's the same as banning drugs. The banning of the drugs doesn't stop people from using them, it just empowers those on the black market who would sell it. When a big enough percentage of the population demands something, it makes no sense to enact a prohibition on that particular thing. The only way prohibition works is if there's only an infinitesimal fraction of the population that actually advocates the thing you want prohibited. Otherwise, your just creating a black market, & providing an easy source of revenue to would-be gun cartels (they won't be running any background checks either), as the demand for guns will certainly exist.

If you want to talk about banning military grade assault rifles (though I would be curious as to the number of people who own such guns), that's one thing, but banning hand-guns, shotguns, & rifles? Never going to happen.

[Gonzo]

Yeah Awsi.....except that guns were one of the first rights the forefathers gauranteed, acknowledging it as a God given right and not one derived from Government. You dont want a gun, nobodys forcing one on you. Until you can come up with a better reason to take mine than it scares you and we'd all be safer without guns is farcical. Almost half the people in Switzerland own a gun or rifle. Their gun related crime is miniscule. How then do you reason less guns here would equal less crimes, when Switzerland clearly refutes your logic. Think it might be their social mindset? Maybe it's the people, not the guns, committing these crimes, and a well trained and armed law abiding citizen is not the target you or the criminal aims for?

I dont expect to change your mind, but i would appreciate a thoughtful debate.

Not sure why Switzerland and Israel are used so often. I would absolutely welcome their gun regulations here. It would address a lot of the issues (mentally ill and felons not being allowed to own guns, for example) and would still allow for the legal ownership of guns outside of automatic weapons. Also, the per capita gun ownership between the US and Switzerland is only comparable because Switzerland is 4th, however, that's more an indication of where the rest of the world stands on it because the similarities completely disappear when you compare the numbers directly. Switzerland ownership is at 45.7 per 100 residents, which places them 4th in the world. The US? 88.8 per 100 citizens, and that's without a mandatory service militia (I would welcome that too, might limit the number of wars we get into).

The only additions I would make are far more stringent storage regulations, no gun ownership if you have a mentally ill person or felon living in the house, and strict and lengthy minimum jail sentences if found in violation of any of the laws. The background checks should be extremely thorough. If I can wait two years to be allowed to live with my wife through the immigration process, certainly those wanting to buy guns can wait a few days to ensure they have no felonies or history of mental illness, nor any such person living at their residence.

[MoFinz]

Not sure why Switzerland and Israel are used so often. I would absolutely welcome their gun regulations here. It would address a lot of the issues (mentally ill and felons not being allowed to own guns, for example) and would still allow for the legal ownership of guns outside of automatic weapons. Also, the per capita gun ownership between the US and Switzerland is only comparable because Switzerland is 4th, however, that's more an indication of where the rest of the world stands on it because the similarities completely disappear when you compare the numbers directly. Switzerland ownership is at 45.7 per 100 residents, which places them 4th in the world. The US? 88.8 per 100 citizens, and that's without a mandatory service militia (I would welcome that too, might limit the number of wars we get into).

The only additions I would make are far more stringent storage regulations, no gun ownership if you have a mentally ill person or felon living in the house, and strict and lengthy minimum jail sentences if found in violation of any of the laws. The background checks should be extremely thorough. If I can wait two years to be allowed to live with my wife through the immigration process, certainly those wanting to buy guns can wait a few days to ensure they have no felonies or history of mental illness, nor any such person living at their residence.

Oh yeah...did ya see that thing i posted? Lanza apparently tried to buy guns for himself and was TURNED DOWN! The checks didnt fail, the laws didnt fail, Lanza failed.