Are teachers underpaid or not?

[Sarvis]

The Republican Party is not concerned with the poor.

That's like saying that the Democratic Party is not concerned with values.

They shouldn't be, that's for sure. Values should not be legislated.

Yes, and they do 100%. Once again, for the third post, our way of helping them is to try and ensure their future,

How do you ensure their future by removing any helping hand they can use to move forward? How can you build a future on a foundation of starvation and homelessness that would result without welfare? What future does a baby have when his mother works 2 jobs just to put crappy, low quality food on the table? How does the mother obtain training between two jobs and raising a child so that she can have a better future?

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Has it ever occurred to you that we don't see that level of poverty here BECAUSE of the social programs you're arguing against?

Yet we still have kids going without meals, without medicine, without basic healthcare because their parents simply can't afford it.

Very good point Sarvis. But I'm not arguing against them, I'm arguing to completely fix them (although yes, some just have to go). Same with public transportation programs, road building programs, the works. And if we're pouring the amount of money we are into these programs, and we still have kids going hungry, without meds, etc., it should be the clearest sign that these are programs that aren't working. They are just preventing them from being Haiti. Stop giving money to FILTH like ACORN, and give it to these programs, AFTER you completely fix/revamp them to include proper education, using money wisely, hygiene, supervision, etc.

No one is arguing the delete natural disaster relief programs, but we need to be assured that the money is being used wisely, not just liberally. Same goes for welfaresque programs.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

That's like saying that the Democratic Party is not concerned with values.

They shouldn't be, that's for sure. Values should not be legislated.

How do you ensure their future by removing any helping hand they can use to move forward? How can you build a future on a foundation of starvation and homelessness that would result without welfare? What future does a baby have when his mother works 2 jobs just to put crappy, low quality food on the table?

Isn't that what you are doing by making me pay to help someone? Forcing your values on me? Just wondering, because usually thats the criticism people throw on Christians. Not sure if you see my point.

[Botef]

I went one summer with students to work in the countryside of the Dominican Republic helping a POOR community build a bridge over a river so that they could have better access to the main road, the nearby hospital, etc. What I saw there wasn't as bad as Africa, mind you, but nothing here in the US that I have ever seen or read comes close to their conditions.

Has it ever occurred to you that we don't see that level of poverty here BECAUSE of the social programs you're arguing against?

Yet we still have kids going without meals, without medicine, without basic healthcare because their parents simply can't afford it.

And for everyone of those needy people who collect from social programs there are two or three who abuse it. I know numerous people like this personally and it blows my mind how little accountability there is. People who work less than 40 hours a week intentionally to earn less, and reap more from welfare. People who have more kids they know they can't afford to care for because of the additional benefits they would get, free housing from HUD, free food (that they don't even eat because they go out to eat so much), free education (that they do poorly in to continue the free money they get to pay bills while they goto school), heck Community Action even pays their cable and internet bills and upgrades their homes with more efficient heating. And at the end of the year they get close to $8000 in tax returns after earning less than that not because of some social obstacle that requires the governments help but because they just don't want to do it for themselves - and because the social systems in place quite willingly allow this kind of behavior.

I tend to be pretty liberal in my viewpoints but I agree with Adriorn on this one, community is much better equipped to handle welfare and care for the needy because the funds used come with a sense of accountability that is upheld by those that provide it. I've personally walked through the shanty towns on the outskirts of Manila, Philippines - my grandmother took me there when I was 16 to show me what real poverty looks like and after having seen the things I saw there I can't help but feel many of the welfare and social programs using our tax dollars feed and care for more lazy people than needy people and feed into a sense of entitlement amongst people who don't deserve it. I'm all for helping the needy, and I think social and welfare programs have their place, but it is already bloated beyond belief and needs to be scaled back and held accountable for the tax dollars that goto waste every month. Being poor isn't a good reason to be handed money because anybody can choose to be poor, unfortunately more often than not those are the kinds of people I see benefiting from social programs while the truly needy work hard and struggle to get by without asking for help.

Part of the problem to me is personal accountability. When people see a homeless community on the street do they say "Why isn't the government doing anything about this?" or do they say "What can I do about this?".

[Sarvis]

Part of the problem to me is personal accountability. When people see a homeless community on the street do they say "Why isn't the government doing anything about this?" or do they say "What can I do about this?".

I suspect most just turn their heads and pretend no one's even there.

Talking about going to strictly community or charity based programs is all fine and good, until you realize that most people don't actually care enough to bother helping.

[Corth]

When government is in the welfare business its easy to feel like you have no moral responsibility for your fellow man. I pay my tax dollars right? All things being equal, we are better off with a system where private charities perform most of the function of the social safety net, with government filling in any gaps. Not the other way around. That way, each person must take some moral responsibility for helping others, rather than simply assuming that government will handle it all. I would imagine, and I haven't bothered to look for data, that people tend to give more to charity when government isn't involved so much with welfare. Perhaps I am being overly idealistic here...

[Ragorn]

That's like saying that the Democratic Party is not concerned with values.

YES!

You are exactly right!

We should NOT be legislating morality! Good pull.

And you keep associating the Republican party with Jesus; should I associate the Democratic party with Satan? Come on.

You can associate us with Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Satan, Allah, Yahweh, Richard Dawkins, and Joe Pesci. We favor equal treatment of all religions, not just all sects of Christianity.

[kiryan]

Corth, I give and do less charity because I figure thats what my taxes do.

In the Bible, 10% of your income is the "minimum" tithing for the support of the direct church/clergy and evangelism basically. Your total giving is supposed to be much larger, on the scale of 25-40% which would include hospitality to travelers, helping out neigbors and community ect...

[Corth]

Tithing is one of the reasons Utah is perenially among the nation's leaders in bankruptcy petitions filed as a percent of total residents. The mormons actually take tithing seriously. That 10% of your income isn't yours, its god's. Even if you are, you know, broke as a joke, that first 10% goes to its rightful owner.

So be careful lending money to a Mormon. God gets priority over you in collecting on debts.

Most people are a little more pragmatic about their charitable donations. If they have money after expenses are paid, then perhaps some of it goes to charity.

Personally, I don't give a cent to charity. I figure thats what the government is doing with a portion of the tax dollars it takes from me. I am not ashamed of this, and in fact, post it on a public forum for anyone to see. I work hard enough and to the extent that a percentage of my income is 'redistributed', I believe that I am satisfying the moral requirement to my fellow man.

[Tasan]

All I have to say is, what in the fuck happened to personal responsibility... oh right, the government and bleeding hearts have made it obsolete by making the alternative much more attractive.

Why pay taxes when you can be lazy and get free money from people who do work hard?
Why not have another 3 or 4 children when the government will throw money at you for doing so?

I think it's high time the government said screw this welfare crap and made a tax-free "crap I lost my job and need money until I can get a new one" account like an IRA for people to dump spare change into. This way we can bring back personal responsibility and say "you had the means necessary to provide for yourself, why didn't you use it? Oh right because you are a lazy fuck who doesn't want to work for a living and would rather feed off everyone else".

I've had a lot of jobs... far more than I ever should have, and I've heard LOTS of excuses from people. I've seen people go 6+ months "looking" for a job, meanwhile they are not actually working at all. Go work 8 hours a day in the crummiest job ever... I mean I don't care what you are doing, just make SOME money. Having a job makes getting another one infinitely easier(especially if you do a good job).

Am I sufficiently off-topic enough?

Technically the teaching issue is more of a problem because we have more incentive for people to have more children than we do for someone to teach those same children. Not to mention parents now use school as day care and could care less about their child until the little bastard reports his teacher grabbed his arm because he was killing another kid in the drinking fountain and that teacher gets sued and fired.

I almost think a system of fines levied against parents of unruly children might cause a radical shift in the behavior of students.

Wow, I ramble...

[Sarvis]

Personally, I don't give a cent to charity. I figure thats what the government is doing with a portion of the tax dollars it takes from me. I am not ashamed of this, and in fact, post it on a public forum for anyone to see. I work hard enough and to the extent that a percentage of my income is 'redistributed', I believe that I am satisfying the moral requirement to my fellow man.

So what you're saying is you think the government CAN do a better job with your money than you can? After all, you could chose your own charities and write off the amount in taxes... but apparently you think the Government will pick better charity than you could.

Good to know. :P

[avak]

A few people have touched on this already, but it is worth repeating. The great irony of people self-righteous trumpeting personal responsibility is that America was built on the concept of the collective good. Most, if not all, Americans have benefited enormously from the social support structures put in place from the beginning of our existence. Of course, it is a natural tendency to discount that assistance and rationalize one's success as entirely one's own.

Anyway, that said, I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility. I despise the truly lazy man as much as anyone, but I happen to believe they are the exception and not the rule. I listened to Sandra Day O'Connor speak the other day and she was talking about the great value of the CCC camps put together by FDR. She talked about how young men would come back to her ranch years later looking for her father, just to talk about how much they had learned by having productive work. I live on a farm, my father has a farm, my friends have farms...I could rant for hours about the lack of skills and work ethic of 'city' people, but why would I demean the vast majority of you that way? It takes me a couple of days in the city to remember how to navigate large groups of people and use mass transit. And then I go to help on a farm with migrant Hispanic laborers that refuse to take breaks (even when requested of them) while the white folk try not to pass out from heat exhaustion.

I guess the greater, feel good philosophical point is that I trust my fellow man to be inherently good and therefore I have a desire to help them. I rarely understand the plight of those outside my community, but I trust that they are gravitating towards a better way of life.

So, streamline welfare and make sure it is getting to the people that need it. Employ mechanisms like the 1996 reform that encourage and facilitate getting back to work. Dump money in to education because it is the single best investment in ourselves that we can possibly make. Harvard is now free for students from families making under 60k or something...they can do that because they have an endowment the size of the several small countries...help make it so that higher education is available to all students that perform well. Allow the free market to guide education more than it currently does; through open enrollment, limited vouchers and limited performance pay. Oh, this is more than long enough. Teachers are underpaid! Churches are overpaid!

[Sarvis]

All I have to say is, what in the fuck happened to personal responsibility... oh right, the government and bleeding hearts have made it obsolete by making the alternative much more attractive.

More attractive? What the fuck are you smoking, man? You should share. Really. Because I don't think I've ever seen anyone living in a house with a leaky roof, eating the crappiest quality food, depending on a government check to keep the house heated, and unable to even afford basic medical care who wouldn't be jealous of the guy making $30k a year with benefits.

So PLEASE explain how living in abject poverty is more attractive than working a decent job?

The problem is the decent jobs available are shrinking, and the qualifications needed to get them are increasing. A guy used to be able to care for his family working for GM. Now GM's sent those jobs overborder, is waiting to collapse and they've been replaced with minimum wage retail jobs. You can talk all you want about how they should just get a minimum wage job, but if they've got kids to feed and welfare pays better than they SHOULD go on welfare. Their responsibility is to care for their children, not your sense of financial outrage.

Maybe the real problem is that the mantra of "personal responsibility" leads us to reward companies for making it harder for anyone to actually find gainful employment over here. Maybe we'd have fewer welfare recipients of people could find a job that would pay to feed their kids.

But no, let's blame people for trying to survive. Those assholes!

[shalath]

What the fuck are you smoking, man? You should share. Really. Because I don't think I've ever seen anyone living in a house with a leaky roof, eating the crappiest quality food, depending on a government check to keep the house heated, and unable to even afford basic medical care who wouldn't be jealous of the guy making $30k a year with benefits.

So PLEASE explain how living in abject poverty is more attractive than working a decent job?

Wow. This is your description of abject poverty? With a house and food and heat? Poor, yes, but for abject poverty look to the five year old in Africa about to die because they have lost the job that was feeding their entire family twice a week.

[Sarvis]

What the fuck are you smoking, man? You should share. Really. Because I don't think I've ever seen anyone living in a house with a leaky roof, eating the crappiest quality food, depending on a government check to keep the house heated, and unable to even afford basic medical care who wouldn't be jealous of the guy making $30k a year with benefits.

So PLEASE explain how living in abject poverty is more attractive than working a decent job?

Wow. This is your description of abject poverty? With a house and food and heat? Poor, yes, but for abject poverty look to the five year old in Africa about to die because they have lost the job that was feeding their entire family twice a week.

Which is exactly where the people I'm talking about would be without welfare and food stamps.

[shalath]

Ok.

[Kifle]

Ok.

That was as funny as recieving a hot coffee enima. But, I suppose that is the magic of internet forums -- you don't have to contribute anything intelligent or relevent to "participate" in a discussion.

[Corth]

Personally, I don't give a cent to charity. I figure thats what the government is doing with a portion of the tax dollars it takes from me. I am not ashamed of this, and in fact, post it on a public forum for anyone to see. I work hard enough and to the extent that a percentage of my income is 'redistributed', I believe that I am satisfying the moral requirement to my fellow man.

So what you're saying is you think the government CAN do a better job with your money than you can? After all, you could chose your own charities and write off the amount in taxes... but apparently you think the Government will pick better charity than you could.

Good to know. :P

No, I think what I am saying is that government makes the choice for me. I am coerced under penalty of imprisonment into giving to the government money I would otherwise give to charity.

Tax lesson. Even if I could write off a charitable deduction (I can't since I don't itemize my deductions), I would not break even. If there was a charitable tax "credit", I would break even, but this is a deduction. So, for me, it would essentially mean that I pay approximately $350 less in taxes for a charitable contribution of $1,000.

[Tasan]

More attractive? What the fuck are you smoking, man? You should share. Really. Because I don't think I've ever seen anyone living in a house with a leaky roof, eating the crappiest quality food, depending on a government check to keep the house heated, and unable to even afford basic medical care who wouldn't be jealous of the guy making $30k a year with benefits.

So PLEASE explain how living in abject poverty is more attractive than working a decent job?

Obviously you live in some dream world where everything works as planned.

There are thousands of people working the "welfare system" for every penny they can get while maintaining other "off the record" income and living a dream. Not to mention the "Section 8" housing that landlords can get grant money to run, but hardly ever have to really do anything but change their company name to really keep themselves out of justice's way. Just look up "fraud" and "welfare" and tell me you never see any links between the two. If you honestly can't see a problem there, you're a moron... oh right, you've already proven that on many occasions.

[Sarvis]

More attractive? What the fuck are you smoking, man? You should share. Really. Because I don't think I've ever seen anyone living in a house with a leaky roof, eating the crappiest quality food, depending on a government check to keep the house heated, and unable to even afford basic medical care who wouldn't be jealous of the guy making $30k a year with benefits.

So PLEASE explain how living in abject poverty is more attractive than working a decent job?

Obviously you live in some dream world where everything works as planned.

There are thousands of people working the "welfare system" for every penny they can get while maintaining other "off the record" income and living a dream. Not to mention the "Section 8" housing that landlords can get grant money to run, but hardly ever have to really do anything but change their company name to really keep themselves out of justice's way. Just look up "fraud" and "welfare" and tell me you never see any links between the two. If you honestly can't see a problem there, you're a moron... oh right, you've already proven that on many occasions.

See, the thing is I'm 100% with you on this part. In your first post you mentioned nothing at all about people defrauding the system, so it's hard for me to avoid thinking you're just engaging in revision to not sound like an asshole.

Of course, you then had to insult me so that parts still pretty much failed.

[teflor the ranger]

"Between 1955 and 1995, the ratio of students-to-teachers in elementary and secondary schools fell from 26.6 to 15 students per teacher, a 40 percent decline ... mainly growth in the pool of mainstream teachers, rather than those of administrators or special-education teachers."

Quantity over Quality
Darius Lakdawalla
Fall 2002 Education Next

The average teacher now teaches fewer children and are arguably less efficient. The slow rise in salary can be justified by that.

The average class size in Montgomery County, MD is 32 kids. The average in 2004 for the US was 23. Not sure where you got the 15 from Tef

I posted the source. Learn to read?

[Tasan]

See, the thing is I'm 100% with you on this part. In your first post you mentioned nothing at all about people defrauding the system, so it's hard for me to avoid thinking you're just engaging in revision to not sound like an asshole.

Of course, you then had to insult me so that parts still pretty much failed.

Of all the people I know, I'm the last to care about being called an asshole, so... no, there was no revision. You chose to see the argument as you wanted it, and responded as you did. Most of the people who would benefit most from the hand-outs of others are NOT the ones who receive the money, and even when they do, they don't have the education/mindset to put that money/aid to the correct use anyhow(which is probably why they are in poverty in the first place... poverty can be overcome with diligence and attitude, not easy, but nothing worth doing ever is).

[Kifle]

You're an asshole.

[Sarvis]

See, the thing is I'm 100% with you on this part. In your first post you mentioned nothing at all about people defrauding the system, so it's hard for me to avoid thinking you're just engaging in revision to not sound like an asshole.

Of course, you then had to insult me so that parts still pretty much failed.

Of all the people I know, I'm the last to care about being called an asshole, so... no, there was no revision. You chose to see the argument as you wanted it, and responded as you did. Most of the people who would benefit most from the hand-outs of others are NOT the ones who receive the money, and even when they do, they don't have the education/mindset to put that money/aid to the correct use anyhow(which is probably why they are in poverty in the first place... poverty can be overcome with diligence and attitude, not easy, but nothing worth doing ever is).

So wait, you never mentioned fraud in your first post but I misread it? See, you have to actually say what you mean for people to read what you meant.

Then, of course, you go back to the same attitude as your original post, and start bitching about poor people saying they are unable or unwilling to be better than they are. So yeah, we're right back to my first interpretation anyway.

Sure, people who are poor might be able to work their way out of poverty. Still think they'd be able to do so WITHOUT welfare? Trying to get a job when you don't even have a place to shower strikes me as inordinately difficult...

[avak]

I said I was done with this nonsense in another thread, but I can't help myself.

I spent some time around some Amish farmers once. They had broken with tradition slightly and allowed someone to drive them a few hundred miles to speak to a group of people. They spent a couple of days with us, mostly talking about a topic entirely unimportant to this story. The patriarch was mild mannered and never engaged in controversial conversations...seeing as how the Amish find much of what mainstream Americans do as counter to their teachings. A young man, maybe in his mid twenties, accompanied the elder Amish man and never said much of anything. On the last day he got up in front of the group and announced that he had thought of some things he wanted to share concerning his observations during his visit. He talked about the differences between his culture and ours and about how that didn't make us all that different. He talked about family ties in his community and basic values. And then he said something that stopped every single person in that room dead in their tracks. To paraphrase, he said, 'but the way you treat your elders is abhorrent. When you find no more need for them you put them in nursing homes to rot and die, alone and disgraced. The Amish cherish our elders and care for them when they lose their physical strength. We bring them in to our homes and try to learn their stories and their lessons. It shows a great lack of character that you treat your elders this way.'

The lesson in that story is probably lost on those of you that are fixated on how hard you've worked to get what you have or the greatest deals on the new big screen tv so you can waste away your self indulgent existence a little less conspicuously.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[Corth]

Yeah, Avak. I don't see the point at all.

Guess you were right. :)

Happy Thanksgiving!

[Tasan]

I didn't say you misread it, I said you saw what you chose to see.

As you and anyone else is wont to do.

My "bitching" is the same as everyone else.... unmitigated ranting against that which I can do nothing about.

I'm not sure what the point of continuing this line of discussion is, but I am confidant it isn't beneficial to anyone.

[Sarell]

First up I think most teachers would prefer government investment into better working conditions, primarily class sizes, compared with a pay rise.

I'm in Australia so my perspective might be a tad out on some things but we do have a similar system, however pay is even across states, the minimum in private schools is lower, but generally they pay higher, meaning they can be more selective - which sounds a bit like Corth's wife's school.

The teaching profession and thus market, has a glut of; do-gooders who do no good by being sub-par; washed up, burnt out don't give a F@#$ or otherwise ineffective teachers; and people who think 'oooo i speek inglish i should teech it'. Some of Adriorn's suggestions would be a good step in alleviating these people from ruining your children's education. You can fail English in school and immediately begin studying to become an English teacher. Then actually get a job. It really isn't good enough and an investment in teacher salaries, and appropriate accountability for said payrise, might alleviate these problems.

This might clear things up.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_are_our_children

[kiryan]

Corth=Tithing is one of the reasons Utah is perenially among the nation's leaders in bankruptcy petitions filed as a percent of total residents. The mormons actually take tithing seriously. That 10% of your income isn't yours, its god's. Even if you are, you know, broke as a joke, that first 10% goes to its rightful owner.

A few of my mormon friends told me that they literally go into church with their tax returns, compare it to what they actually tithed, and are expected to work out a plan to settle up. They take it very seriously, and they should. If I was mormon, I'd be happy to tithe, they have an efficient organization and they use their money very well. I don't even think they pay their ministers... its an appointment, they pretty much come to you and say its time for you to serve for I believe a 1-3 year term.

[avak]

Obama takes on teachers' unions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090310/pl_politico/19824

I just had to bump this because Obama is a policy maniac. It is truly impressive how ambitious his administration is.

[Sarvis]

Obama takes on teachers' unions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090310/pl_politico/19824

I just had to bump this because Obama is a policy maniac. It is truly impressive how ambitious his administration is.

Spectacular.

That's not sarcasm, at all. I had teachers in my high school who would tell us to open the book and start reading every day so they could take a nap at their desks.

I wonder if the conservatives will be against this because it's Obama, or for it because it's anti-union?

[avak]

Yeah, I remember in high school some of us hid the textbook from the American History teacher and for -days- we did nothing...essentially a study hall...until someone gave him his book back. He was helpless without it.

I think the conservatives (a lot of them anyway) will find some reason to be skeptical or dismissive...that is almost a given. What will be embarrassing to me is the inevitable backlash from his own party idealogues.

[kiryan]

I don't get it with the conservatives comments... Unions have fought merit pay for years they don't want this because it creates opportunity for internal strife and competition. They like it when all their members agree that all of them are underpaid. It shifts power back to the employers and flies in face of the protections from dismissal that unions have built into their contracts under the guise of being "free from political influence" (school boards are elected).

Conservatives will be against this if it turns out to just be a raise for teachers with no accountability for providing REAL improvements. Thats what I fear will happen. Unions will have a big role in writing up the qualifications the benchmarks the standards and the exceptions and will make it so that every teacher gets the merit pay.

I think NCLB established a "highly qualified" benchmark for teachers (might be an oregon specific thing). From what I can tell all the teachers in the three schools my kids attend meet the standard and are considered "highly qualified". The basics of the benchmark are a masters degree and 10 years of "experience". Very little attention to results at all. There is a process to flag a teacher, but all a teacher has to do is switch jobs before the process is complete and it disappears. There are a ton of ways to manipulate the system.

[Corth]

The conservatives have been pushing for this for years. As Kiryan mentions, the devil is in the details. If its just a pretext for spending more Federal money on education without actually taking merit into account, then they should push back. If its a legitimate merit based system, then they will likely support it. Though I think getting rid of tenure and being able to FIRE the bad teachers would be pretty effective here also. You know.. carrot AND stick.

[Kifle]

The conservatives have been pushing for this for years. As Kiryan mentions, the devil is in the details. If its just a pretext for spending more Federal money on education without actually taking merit into account, then they should push back. If its a legitimate merit based system, then they will likely support it. Though I think getting rid of tenure and being able to FIRE the bad teachers would be pretty effective here also. You know.. carrot AND stick.

I think the idea of tenure and education is a double-edge sword and shouldn't be dismissed simply because you can't fire the shitty teachers. In a perfect world, only teachers who deserve tenure based on merit should get it, and the process to attain tenure should be much more difficult than it is now; however, I'm highly in favor of tenure for many reasons that are in no way related to simple job security.

[Gormal]

You can associate us with Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Satan, Allah, Yahweh, Richard Dawkins, and Joe Pesci. We favor equal treatment of all religions, not just all sects of Christianity.

I know this is way late, but I hate reading these fucking threads but this shit is just incredible. This is the most self-righteous piece of shit I've ever seen your write Joe, and honestly you should be embarrassed that you ever did. Libs are not morally superior to conservatives, and this is the same type of stupid shit that makes Kiryan's arguments so dumb half the time. This is a perfect example of the democratic party lines being thrown around here, just like Kiryan's FOX news tickers are for republican buzzwords.

There's no intelligent debate here, its just people screaming at eachother refusing to participate in a constructive discussion. That is the singular reason why we need a political forum, because these "discussions" are just you guys all acting like retards.

[teflor the ranger]

You can associate us with Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Satan, Allah, Yahweh, Richard Dawkins, and Joe Pesci. We favor equal treatment of all religions, not just all sects of Christianity.

I know this is way late, but I hate reading these fucking threads but this shit is just incredible. This is the most self-righteous piece of shit I've ever seen your write Joe, and honestly you should be embarrassed that you ever did. Libs are not morally superior to conservatives, and this is the same type of stupid shit that makes Kiryan's arguments so dumb half the time. This is a perfect example of the democratic party lines being thrown around here, just like Kiryan's FOX news tickers are for republican buzzwords.

There's no intelligent debate here, its just people screaming at eachother refusing to participate in a constructive discussion. That is the singular reason why we need a political forum, because these "discussions" are just you guys all acting like retards.

[teflor the ranger]

Also:



This and the above comic from SMBC-comics.com

[kiryan]

You can associate us with Jesus, Buddha, Shiva, Satan, Allah, Yahweh, Richard Dawkins, and Joe Pesci. We favor equal treatment of all religions, not just all sects of Christianity.

I WELCOME it. Where do I sign. We can get all the liberal agenda out of the public schools at the same time we remove anything good and decent. I'm dead serious, I can't wait for the day I can brand homo agenda with the same iron that they do Christianity and the day that newspaper treat non religious "world views" with the same disdain and lack of respect that they do Christianity. BRING IT ON.

[Sarvis]

...same time we remove anything good and decent

So the only good and decent things in existence all stem from Christianity?

[Ragorn]

I WELCOME it. Where do I sign. We can get all the liberal agenda out of the public schools at the same time we remove anything good and decent. I'm dead serious, I can't wait for the day I can brand homo agenda with the same iron that they do Christianity and the day that newspaper treat non religious "world views" with the same disdain and lack of respect that they do Christianity. BRING IT ON.

"Homo agenda" makes me laugh out loud. The "homo agenda" of the 21st century is the same as the "black agenda" was in 1964... equal rights.

Also:



Fuck your stupid "war on Christianity." Until I see passages from the Qur'an hanging alongside the Ten Commandments in courthouses, you can blow it out your ear.

[kiryan]

...same time we remove anything good and decent

So the only good and decent things in existence all stem from Christianity?

Yea, thats obviously hyperbole, but pretty much yes. Put all the nations with a majority Christian population on one side and the others on another then you tell me which side you want to be on.

--

Ragorn my.ballz. If the homo agenda, the green agenda, the socialist agenda, and all things liberal can be trumpted in the public schools in the name of impartial "education", then so should the christian agenda. I welcome the day when all "world views" are held to the same standard.

[Ragorn]

Ragorn my.ballz. If the homo agenda, the green agenda, the socialist agenda, and all things liberal can be trumpted in the public schools in the name of impartial "education", then so should the christian agenda. I welcome the day when all "world views" are held to the same standard.

Christianity has no observable or provable facts to teach. I wholeheartedly support the bible being taught as literature, and the history of the roman empire being taught in history classes. Jesus walking on water and being resurrected? Sure, prove it with observable data, and I'll support teaching that too.

Until then, Christianity should get the same attention in public schools as Islam, Shinto, and Scientology. You can help decide how much time is allocated to each... some or none.

Yea, thats obviously hyperbole, but pretty much yes. Put all the nations with a majority Christian population on one side and the others on another then you tell me which side you want to be on.

I'd say that the majority of the scientific achievements in America's history have been made in spite of the Christians, not because of them. If Christians were allowed to dictate scientific progress, we'd still be riding donkeys and dying of malaria.

[kiryan]

Those inventions may have come "despite" religion, but its interesting to note that Christian countries tend to be more stable and prosperous.

I'm quite a long ways from saying a=b, but I do think about it from time to time. I really do wonder if Africa or the middle east would be such a shithole if there were more Christians there (or moderate/liberal muslims or buddist).

[Sarvis]

Those inventions may have come "despite" religion, but its interesting to note that Christian countries tend to be more stable and prosperous.

Yeah, Japan sounds like a complete shithole.

Oh, You were just thinking of places like India and China weren't you? Yeah, how much of their problems are caused by political ideologies instead of religious ideologies I wonder...?

I'm also entirely certain resource availability had nothing to do with how countries turned out.

I'm quite a long ways from saying a=b, but I do think about it from time to time. I really do wonder if Africa or the middle east would be such a shithole if there were more Christians there (or moderate/liberal muslims or buddist).

I wonder how Africa would be if Christians never showed up. How about the middle east without us putting dictators in power or Christians choosing to set aside some of their land for Jewish people?

I mean, it's one thing to say Christian countries are doing better... but how often have Christians invaded places like the middle east, India or Africa tried to rule them, stolen resources and even people? How much of their current problems stem from the original actions of Christian crusaders?



By the way, what the hell homosexual agenda do you think is being taught in schools? I'm pretty sure it's a subject they don't touch beyond trying to get each other to treat everyone else equally. (I know, I know... the HORROR!)

What, exactly, is wrong with people being able to raise their own children with the beliefs they see fit? That's the "liberal agenda" you're speaking of. We don't want religion taught in school because if my kid is Christian he shouldn't have to pray to Mohammed.

Yes, that's backwards... but it's so you can get the farking point. There is no more validity to having prayer sessions or teaching intelligent design in school than there is teaching that Mohammed was a prophet. You wouldn't stand for the latter though, right?

Schools should educate children on facts, knowledge and social skills... nothing else. That's the parents' job. Please, PLEASE, explain to me why it's so wrong for parents to teach their kids religion instead of wanting teachers to do it!

[teflor the ranger]

Until then, Christianity should get the same attention in public schools as Islam, Shinto, and Scientology. You can help decide how much time is allocated to each... some or none.

Fact: more people in this country report themselves to be Christian than every other faith combined twice.

To not teach children in public schools something about our own culture as a nation? Your idea of a good idea.

Ragorn: wrong on everything :)

[Ragorn]

Those inventions may have come "despite" religion, but its interesting to note that Christian countries tend to be more stable and prosperous.

While that is generally true of the US and Europe at this very moment, it is not universally true (Japan, South Korea, India), nor was it always true (Arab Empire, the USSR, Aztecs/Incas/Mayans), nor will it be true a couple decades from now (India, China). Nor have Christian countries always (inquisition) been (crusades) stable (witch trials) and (Nazi Germany) prosperous.



Christianity is a culture that shuns progress and embraces teachings over two millennia old. Capitalism and democracy have far more to do with the current success of the US and Europe than the particular deity that some people in those countries choose to pray to.

Unless you want to make a case that Christianity somehow fosters progress more than other religions... in which case, be my guest :)

[Gormal]

I think its safe to say that the majority of the world believes in some form of mystical dogma that is unprovable as far as Ragorn is concerned. Basically, you just told most of the people on the entire planet that they're wrong and you're right. Just in this country, 92% of people say that you're wrong about there being no God. Personally, I don't believe that religion has a place in schools outside of a historical classroom. But lets be honest Ragorn, you look down on people because they're religious. Its pretty obvious that you consider them dumber than you, and thus less entitled to an equal voice.

Guess what, 9 voices drown out 1.

Stop responding to Kiryan's ridiculous statements like "homo agenda", its just turning you into his polar opposite.

[Sarvis]

Guess what, 9 voices drown out 1.

Even if it's Teflor?

[Ragorn]

Basically, you just told most of the people on the entire planet that they're wrong and you're right.

Wow, I guess I could pass for Christian after all :)

Stop responding to Kiryan's ridiculous statements like "homo agenda", its just turning you into his polar opposite.

You've got some sand in your vag this week, between this thread and the webcomic thread. Dust it out, you're starting to piss me off.