On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I think we've got a whole new topic here.

I don't know that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence. (A lot of "smiting" goes on in the Book.)

Nor do I agree that affirmative action was racist (when it was in effect to redress a very real problem that has since been somewhat alleviated)

or that private schools are preferable to public education. But I do believe that taking away resources for public schools and diverting them to private schools is a very good idea. What good are tax credits if you're living below the poverty line and can afford a private school? Some have proposed vouchers, but since public education has been shown, overall, to be superior that that offered by charter schools, why would you want to privatize it?

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I heard on the news this morning that the shooting range, where the Uzi was fired with fatal results by a nine-year old, has re-opened for business with NO changes in it's rules regarding age requirements, etc. Apparently, if you're at least eight years old, you're eligible to fire their automatic weapons.

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I think we've got a whole new topic here.

I don't know that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence. (A lot of "smiting" goes on in the Book.)

...

On Aug 30, 2014, rockwall wrote:

The statement WASN'T that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence, it was, "IF it did, would you support it?"

On Aug 30, 2014, rockwall wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I think we've got a whole new topic here.

I don't know that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence. (A lot of "smiting" goes on in the Book.)

...

Does being an ex-lawyer make someone particularly adept at dodging questions I wonder?

The statement WASN'T that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence, it was, "IF it did, would you support it?"

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I heard on the news this morning that the shooting range, where the Uzi was fired with fatal results by a nine-year old, has re-opened for business with NO changes in it's rules regarding age requirements, etc. Apparently, if you're at least eight years old, you're eligible to fire their automatic weapons.

You'd think they'd have at least bumped it up to 10! It will be interesting to see if any lawsuits are filed, and if so, whether the business survives.

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Amazing, isn't it? But, it seems to me that the girl may well have a cause of action (for mental distress and psychic injury) against the range as well as her own parents.

On Aug 30, 2014, TonyB2009 wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Drugs are inherently dangerous.

No, they are not. Some cultures use drugs as part of their religious rites, and they are not associated with anti-social behaviour. Alcohol in moderation can be good for you, it is only when it is overused or abused that it slips into danger territory. It is not inherently dangerous. Same with marijuana, caffine, or any of a number of other commonly used drugs.

If you had said crack cocaine was inherently dangerous, I would not dispute that. But not all drugs are.

And like other assertions on this thread, from myself and from others, I am not going to back it up with extraneous studies. Dig them out yourself.

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

On Aug 30, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Amazing, isn't it? But, it seems to me that the girl may well have a cause of action (for mental distress and psychic injury) against the range as well as her own parents.

Would the instructor's family have any realistic way to sue the girl, her parents, and / or the range for anything? Wrongful death or anything else?

On Aug 30, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, rockwall wrote:

The statement WASN'T that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence, it was, "IF it did, would you support it?"

The devil is in the details, isn't it.

Would YOU support the teaching of Christianity in the situation described?

Would you still do so if the teachers were all atheists who instructed the kids that Christianity was a bunch of fables and myths?

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

So at least we can all(?) agree that one can oppose measures that would bring about what one claims would be a desired result without being a hypocrite.

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, balducci wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, rockwall wrote:

The statement WASN'T that teaching Christianity in public schools would reduce violence, it was, "IF it did, would you support it?"

The devil is in the details, isn't it.

Would YOU support the teaching of Christianity in the situation described?

Would you still do so if the teachers were all atheists who instructed the kids that Christianity was a bunch of fables and myths?

Sort of outside the scope of the point. The issue isn't that it (or any other particular thing) should be supported; it's that one doesn't have to be a hypocrite to reject an idea that would bring about a claimed desirable result.

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

So at least we can all(?) agree that one can oppose measures that would bring about what one claims would be a desired result without being a hypocrite.

I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the notion that you could reject ALL such measures and not be a hypocrite.

On Aug 30, 2014, R.S. wrote:
Since this was brought up earlier, here's some interesting stats on Christianity and the murder rate...

http://www.cybercollege.com/fog33.htm

"As reported in the Journal of Religion and Society, in 2005, when the top 18 "prosperous democracies" are compared, a reverse relationship becomes evident between "quantifiable societal health" and "religious fervency."

In other words, the more religious a society is the more social problems that society has.

By social problems they are talking about suicide, teen pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted disease, homicides, divorce, and child mortality."


and...

http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Rel......nd-Crime


Ron

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Aug 30, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I wouldn't. Clear enough- or would you like to take another gratuitous potshot?

So at least we can all(?) agree that one can oppose measures that would bring about what one claims would be a desired result without being a hypocrite.

I never disagreed with that. I disagreed with the notion that you could reject ALL such measures and not be a hypocrite.

Then I'll stop arguing the point. But I'll also submit that there's nobody on the planet would would reject all measures that would reduce the murder rate.