Archive for May, 2010

Once again, another dispute that seems so simple to solve, but is obviously too challenging to agree on because of the ridiculousness of how people get caught up on the idea that their way is the only way.

I say allow religion to be taught in public schools, but in order to stay within the confines of the constitutional position regarding church and state, as well as to maintain civility and logic, they all must be taught.  Not only that, but the non-secular oppositions to religion must also be a part of the curriculum.  If religion is to be taught in schools, it should be as a history, and/or as a type of sociology, it could potentially present a well balanced understanding of what each of the different belief structures are grounded in.  For any of the arguable details that are often times divisive, it should be noted that the details are based upon a particular perspective.  This could also lead to philosophical debates that could certainly charge the ability of students to think more critically about the afterlife, spirituality and the concept of god(s)/goddess(es).

What is the value of this:

1)     A more holistic way of thinking about the details and the history of what many people believe is the most important decision one can make.

2)     Students would learn how to better discuss these issues in a civil manner that will promote social growth rather than continuous destruction.

3)     Students would get a more fair chance at deciding for themselves what they believe to be the truth regarding the divine.

4)     The introduction of logical thinking along side religion (not spirituality) to the greater masses may allow for a more meaningful purpose to it all.

5)     Because religion is such a powerful force in this world, the details of them should be recognized just as, but hopefully more responsible than, history (namely American history).

I would like to add that I do not believe that faith should be taught.  Of course you cannot teach one without the discussion of the other, but for an educator to take a position on faith would destroy any possibility of a success or progress.

Here’s a great TED talk on the subject:


Throughout the political games that take place between opposing media sources and from one government official to the next, are dichotomous issues that are so often used for ammunition against the opposition.  The problem with this is that it provides those in power with the opportunity to make serious moves while the public is bickering over details that have almost no impact on them compared to the behind-the-scene activities that cost crazy amounts of  lives, money and environmental damage.  These highly divisive issues are at the forefront of our political battles, but serve almost no justice to the future sustainability of our country.  It is not by accident that America is tearing itself apart over gay rights and talking points words like “socialist” and “fascist.”  Very few people that are fighting against these things have any idea what they mean, let alone how the reprecussions of these issues are going to effect them.

The purpose in this post, however, is not to debate words and talking points.  Its not even to talk about the media, government officials selling out to corporate money, or the neo-capitalist society that allows the corporate control that is driving our nation and our world into catastrophe.  The purpose is to reveal some of the dichotomies between the left and right side of the isle, starting with the right.  I’m interested to see what conservatives have to say about their position on the following issues, as well as theories developed by liberals as to why certain values are held by the right.

Why are the following considered by most to be conservative values or positions?






Free market capitalist

Support war

Anti-big government intervention

Anti same sex marriage

Anti immigrant

Anti social programs

Non accepting of global warming

Non environmentalists


Pro death penalty

It is clear that there are certainly issues that overlap, and even contradict themselves at face value.