No,(some) Christians object to their children being taught facts because those Christians don't like those facts or find them uncomfortable. Obvious examples are evolutionary theory and sex education.That is a question for a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Suffice it to say, Christians do not object to math or chemistry. What they may object to, however, are when science teachers or math teachers jump to conclusions and then attempt to weigh in on philosophical or religious matters.
If you want to term "an acceptance of reality, including scientific discovery" a belief system, sure. That's what the left tries to get taught in schools, despite all the right can do.Actually--that is exactly what your side attempts to do. Both sides attempt to control the curriculum to reflect their belief systems.
Of course it is, and Christians object to it constantly.It isn't sex education persey--that one would object to.
That's simply false. Methods of contraception are facts. To teach them is not to teach any value system; it is to teach facts. (Some) Christians do not want their children to learn those facts because they would rather lie to them and attempt to keep them in line through terror and ignorance. Again, the left wants children to learn facts, not be lied to and kept ignorant.It is the implicit VALUES being taught that one might object to. If parents are trying to teach their children that sex is a sacred act between one man and one woman united in the covenant of marriage, you can understand why they would object to some government employee telling children to practice "safe sex" if they are going to shack up. That undermines the values parents are trying to teach their children.
And I'll remind you that the places in the nation with the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs are those where the teaching of abstinence-only sex education are predominant. If the aim is to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs, then the Christians' approach does not work. But - again - they are much more interested in posturing and being holier-than-thou than they are in actually helping their children.
The obvious example is the right to abort.What laws are Christians trying to change? What freedoms are Christians attempting to take away?
There are. A miniscule number compared to the Christians who are pro-life. It is the Christians who are driving the fight against the right to abort. It is the Christians doing what they have done for so long - try to take the rights of others away.There are atheists who are pro-life, sir.
I do not understand how this paragraph relates to anything I said.School "choice" meaning the right to choose your school and have the tax dollars go to that school. You talk about the poor. Why would you not want to empower them by helping them attend--elite schools only the rich can afford?
My 'question' above was rhetorical, meant to reflect your question about paying for someone else's abortion when you had nothing to do with it. In the same vein, why should I pay for someone else's schooling when I had nothing to do with it?You just answered your question above.
The answer to both questions is because we live in a society; we all pay for what is deemed to be advantageous to that society.
That is one reason some pro-lifers object to it. As I've already stated, it's not even the main reason.Sir, abortion is baby killing. That is why pro-lifers object to it. Now, it is just that--I do not think it is terribly helpful to our cause to call abortion supporters "Baby killers." If you are trying to win someone over to your side, you should avoid insulting them like that.
I'm sorry, but abortion supporters are against women. That's obvious. If they weren't, they would allow women the choice.But abortion supporters are just as guilty--calling pro-lifers misogynist, or otherwise making them look stupid and against women.
Yet again, what you term 'responsible' does not make it so.What is so hard about avoiding pregnancy in the first place through responsible sex?
Pregnancy can, indeed, be an adverse consequence of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. If a pregnancy is not desired, then by definition it is an adverse consequence. Again, the fact that in a small percentage of cases sex results in pregnancy does not change that fact.Pregnancy is NOT an "adverse consequence" of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. A Crash is a potential "adverse effect" of driving. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, sir. It is not an "adverse consequence." Pregnancy is what happens when people have sex---assuming nothing is defective or wrong with the body, or people are beyond childbearing age.
No, it is not a fact. It is your opinion. No more. You cannot demonstrate that it is a fact, you can offer nothing to support your claim that it is a fact. You can't even offer a theoretical method in which such a claim could ever be evaluated for accuracy.No. I am saying that abortion is objectively wrong. THis is a fact. Those who support abortion do not understand this becasue they are blind or simply do not want to. It is analogous to the alcoholic who despite all evidence to the contrary insists they are not an alcoholic and they do not have a problem.
All morality is opinion and nothing more. Neither you nor anybody else has ever been able to demonstrate a single objective moral rule.
And please, you're better than the "if you disagree you're blind or simply do not want to." I can as easily say precisely the same thing about those who do not share my opinions. Whether you say it or I do, it is useless.
Nowhere. If you claim that your morality is independent of what your god says, I'll happily withdraw may statement. I doubt very much that you will do so, however.Sir, again, WHEN in any of my posts did you see me argue that we need to outlaw abortion becasue 1) my god or gods say so, 2) my holy book says so, 3) my religion says so, 4) my religious leaders say so, 5) Matt Slick of CARM says so?
But that is ultimately the source of your morality. Objective morality exists (in the claim of those Christians who hold that it exists) solely because there is an object morality giver. I have lost count of the Christians who have told me that if I discard God, I discard any basis for an objective morality.I am not so stupid as to try and argue like that--when I know I am arguing with people who may not be Christian or even theist. Please give me more credit than that!
That's correct - one need not be religious to be pro-life. But, as stated above, the vast majority of pro-lifers are Christian (in the US, that is). But atheists tend to lean to the left; it is a minority of atheists who are pro-life.What do you make of pro-life atheists? Abortion, like racism, is not solely a religious issue. True--Christians and Catholics are anti-abortion, and against racism--but one need not be religious to be anti-abortion, just like one need not be religious to be against racism.