Add criticism into relgious education.

I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.

The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that equal criticisms of all religions should be taught in schools.

The entire key stage 4 of religious education is about Christianity and what the bible says. There should be sections on using logic to defeat god, evidence against relgion, bible criticisms, the evil in the bible (millions of murders in the name of god or ordered by god) or the morality of relgions that are wrong.

Civil liberties for faith groups

I think that it is important that the civil rights of members of the major religions in this country should be respected.  It has seemed that in many cases their freedom to act according to their own consciences has been eroded.  The previous government seemed to bend over backwards, in the name of diversity, to put Christians' rights to the back of the queue.   We are not a tiny minority who can be disregarded –  you may not realise it but more people watch 'Songs of Praise' than 'Match of the Day'!

Why is this idea important?

I think that it is important that the civil rights of members of the major religions in this country should be respected.  It has seemed that in many cases their freedom to act according to their own consciences has been eroded.  The previous government seemed to bend over backwards, in the name of diversity, to put Christians' rights to the back of the queue.   We are not a tiny minority who can be disregarded –  you may not realise it but more people watch 'Songs of Praise' than 'Match of the Day'!

Being able to celebrate our own customs.

Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?

If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.

The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.

I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?

Why is this idea important?

Is it not a civil liberty to have freedom of speach and celebrate our countries customs without having to worry the local council is going to accuse us of being racist?

If we want to celebrate customs such as Easter and say we are English it is OUR right as British people. Surely the government should stop councils from offending the British by stopping them having that freedom? I was disgusted at the amount of councils last year that stopped putting up christmas decorations because it will offend. It offends us if they are not up.

The government needs to put some sort of guideline in place so that EVERYONE is happy not one or the other. At the end of the day we ALL live here and NOONES customs should be stopped or curbed. After all i thought we were a nation of EQUALITY.

I am all for legal immigration, but they have to respect everything that is british and what we celebrate, they cant expect us to change in our country, we dont expect them to give up their customs so why are we being made to by some councils and politicians?

Religious exemptions to equality laws should be removed

Many religions ignore laws such as equal rights for women and homosexuality.  Unless a religion conforms to the spirit of the law, it should,  as a minimum, not be classified as a religion, and, if necessary, its members should be prosecuted for not positively adhering to equal rights.

Why is this idea important?

Many religions ignore laws such as equal rights for women and homosexuality.  Unless a religion conforms to the spirit of the law, it should,  as a minimum, not be classified as a religion, and, if necessary, its members should be prosecuted for not positively adhering to equal rights.

Schools should be secular, mixed, presenting religion as a comparative subject

State schools should be secular, mixed sex and present religion as a comparative subject, thus encouraging greater integration, understanding of gender roles, all faiths and cultures, rather than promoting one as the only right path and way of life.They should be well funded and easily accessed countrywide. Private, independent schools should fund themselves, without financial help, either from the State or charitable status.

Why is this idea important?

State schools should be secular, mixed sex and present religion as a comparative subject, thus encouraging greater integration, understanding of gender roles, all faiths and cultures, rather than promoting one as the only right path and way of life.They should be well funded and easily accessed countrywide. Private, independent schools should fund themselves, without financial help, either from the State or charitable status.

Equality for all regardless of Religous Denomination

I would like to be as equal as you. I would like my son to be an equal to you.

But we are not, we by religous denomination are not extended the same rights and freedoms as you and yours.To be Catholic in your 21st Century modern society where equality issues are dominant in your social policies, is to be invisible.The great undiscussed. The only religion where the law of the land itself discriminates against you rather than society itself .It is easily solved. Repeal the Act of Settlement and do it willingly under the grounds that we are all equal and that my son should have the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with yours on the steps of Downing Street.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to be as equal as you. I would like my son to be an equal to you.

But we are not, we by religous denomination are not extended the same rights and freedoms as you and yours.To be Catholic in your 21st Century modern society where equality issues are dominant in your social policies, is to be invisible.The great undiscussed. The only religion where the law of the land itself discriminates against you rather than society itself .It is easily solved. Repeal the Act of Settlement and do it willingly under the grounds that we are all equal and that my son should have the right to stand shoulder to shoulder with yours on the steps of Downing Street.

Ban so-called ‘Mediums’

I understand this page is about restoring civil liberties and not introducing new prohibitory laws, however i felt the need to raise this concernt anyway!

The government should ban the con-artists who operate up and down the country and on television who 'claim' to be able to communicate with the dead and relay vague and construed messages to their surviving family members, often for extortionate fee's.

I myself do not believe in an afterlife, however if I did, I cannot imagine an afterlife where we float around our surviving family members in the hope that they will pop along to a medium communicator so that I can relay some vague piece of information on them. If indeed I could truly communicate with these 'mediums' I could think of many many important things to tell them other than the arbitrary comments you regularly here such as 'they are happy now', 'they are in a good place', 'they want you to move on with your life' etc etc.

The whole thing is a complete sham and in my opinion the worst kind of sham… one that plays on the grief and sadness of people who have lost loved ones.

I would urge every one to look into the art of 'cold reading' if you truly believe these 'mediums' have special powers. A quick 5 minute read on this subject will swiftly bring you to the conclusion that these people are filthy fraudsters.

I could ramble on about these disgusting individuals all day, however I hope the jist of my feelings on these con-artists has been raised.

Thank you, comments are welcome

Why is this idea important?

I understand this page is about restoring civil liberties and not introducing new prohibitory laws, however i felt the need to raise this concernt anyway!

The government should ban the con-artists who operate up and down the country and on television who 'claim' to be able to communicate with the dead and relay vague and construed messages to their surviving family members, often for extortionate fee's.

I myself do not believe in an afterlife, however if I did, I cannot imagine an afterlife where we float around our surviving family members in the hope that they will pop along to a medium communicator so that I can relay some vague piece of information on them. If indeed I could truly communicate with these 'mediums' I could think of many many important things to tell them other than the arbitrary comments you regularly here such as 'they are happy now', 'they are in a good place', 'they want you to move on with your life' etc etc.

The whole thing is a complete sham and in my opinion the worst kind of sham… one that plays on the grief and sadness of people who have lost loved ones.

I would urge every one to look into the art of 'cold reading' if you truly believe these 'mediums' have special powers. A quick 5 minute read on this subject will swiftly bring you to the conclusion that these people are filthy fraudsters.

I could ramble on about these disgusting individuals all day, however I hope the jist of my feelings on these con-artists has been raised.

Thank you, comments are welcome

End legal privilege of religious over non-religious views

Laws and regulations which give special privelege and protection to religious beliefs should be amended, such as Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and 2003 Employment Equality regulations.

The argument is not that discrimination against religious views should be lawful, but privilege given to  religious views over others, is wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Laws and regulations which give special privelege and protection to religious beliefs should be amended, such as Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam and 2003 Employment Equality regulations.

The argument is not that discrimination against religious views should be lawful, but privilege given to  religious views over others, is wrong.

Improve local choice for parents to send their children to non-faith, co-educational schools

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Cannabis and the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Why is this idea important?

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
 

 

Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
 

Inclusive school assemblies of all beliefs.

What is happening?

In England all state maintained schools are legally required to provide daily collective worship for all their pupils. In community schools the majority of the acts of daily collective worship that are provided in a given term are legally required to be of a ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’.  In ‘faith schools’ the act of worship is provided in accordance with the school's trust deed or the tenets and practices of the religion or religious denomination of the school.

This means that all school pupils are currently legally obliged to undertake an act of (usually Christian) worship each school day, regardless of their own beliefs. Although there are opportunities to opt out of this, this is only allowed if requested by the parents. This leaves young people without access to their right to freedom of belief.

Although the law on collective worship is clear, it is widely ignored, which is clearly very unhealthy in a democratic society. OFSTED's 2002-03 annual report, for example, states that ‘four fifths of schools do not hold a daily act of collective worship for all pupils’.

We are strongly in favour of inclusive school assemblies, which can help to build shared values and a sense of community. We oppose acts of collective worship in school, since these exclude many, and believe that the parental right of excusal is not a proper solution.

Why is this idea important?

What is happening?

In England all state maintained schools are legally required to provide daily collective worship for all their pupils. In community schools the majority of the acts of daily collective worship that are provided in a given term are legally required to be of a ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’.  In ‘faith schools’ the act of worship is provided in accordance with the school's trust deed or the tenets and practices of the religion or religious denomination of the school.

This means that all school pupils are currently legally obliged to undertake an act of (usually Christian) worship each school day, regardless of their own beliefs. Although there are opportunities to opt out of this, this is only allowed if requested by the parents. This leaves young people without access to their right to freedom of belief.

Although the law on collective worship is clear, it is widely ignored, which is clearly very unhealthy in a democratic society. OFSTED's 2002-03 annual report, for example, states that ‘four fifths of schools do not hold a daily act of collective worship for all pupils’.

We are strongly in favour of inclusive school assemblies, which can help to build shared values and a sense of community. We oppose acts of collective worship in school, since these exclude many, and believe that the parental right of excusal is not a proper solution.

Tax evasion by churches

I suppose it would be too much to ask for churches to lose their tax exempt status, even though the rest of us will end up paying more. But many borderline organisations should be checked out.

The cult otherwise known as the church of Scientology is not even a real religion, but because it does a bit of drug rehab work to give it credibility, it is a registered charity.

If this continues then it should apply to Jedis, Trekkies and other UFO believers

Why is this idea important?

I suppose it would be too much to ask for churches to lose their tax exempt status, even though the rest of us will end up paying more. But many borderline organisations should be checked out.

The cult otherwise known as the church of Scientology is not even a real religion, but because it does a bit of drug rehab work to give it credibility, it is a registered charity.

If this continues then it should apply to Jedis, Trekkies and other UFO believers

A referendum over elements of offensive ethnic cultures

In light of the growing demand from the electorates in many countries to outlaw cultural or religious practices that the majority find offensive, discourteous or innapropiate in a western culture, this discussion should be placed in the hands of the electorate to vote on rather than leaving it to MP's at westminster. We live in a multicultural society where allowances are made to accomadate different cultures BUT there should be a limit of that tired old phrase, freedom of expression. Society does NOT allow total and absolute freedom of expression to anyone as we all have to adhere to the preferences of the majority in any western society.  That used to be the principal of democratic states however a very small minority within Britain as well as Europe have used our generosity in F of E to use it for a radical cause celebre.

I suggest that where contentious issues like full face covering in public, polygamy, forced marriages and practices like the mutilation of female genitalia are tacitly condoned under so called F of E rights, it is beholden on the UK government to get off the fence and strike down anti-social or illegal practices.  Additionally if there are already some laws that cover parts of these issues, we the people need to see those laws actually be imlemented.

To this end it would seem a refendum should be held on these cultural issues that 66% of the country finds offensive, and leave the choice of laws that are needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation to be decided by the electorate as a whole. MP's at westminster do not carry the moral high ground here as its the man & woman in the street that is most affected by these alien practices.

Why is this idea important?

In light of the growing demand from the electorates in many countries to outlaw cultural or religious practices that the majority find offensive, discourteous or innapropiate in a western culture, this discussion should be placed in the hands of the electorate to vote on rather than leaving it to MP's at westminster. We live in a multicultural society where allowances are made to accomadate different cultures BUT there should be a limit of that tired old phrase, freedom of expression. Society does NOT allow total and absolute freedom of expression to anyone as we all have to adhere to the preferences of the majority in any western society.  That used to be the principal of democratic states however a very small minority within Britain as well as Europe have used our generosity in F of E to use it for a radical cause celebre.

I suggest that where contentious issues like full face covering in public, polygamy, forced marriages and practices like the mutilation of female genitalia are tacitly condoned under so called F of E rights, it is beholden on the UK government to get off the fence and strike down anti-social or illegal practices.  Additionally if there are already some laws that cover parts of these issues, we the people need to see those laws actually be imlemented.

To this end it would seem a refendum should be held on these cultural issues that 66% of the country finds offensive, and leave the choice of laws that are needed to rectify this unsatisfactory situation to be decided by the electorate as a whole. MP's at westminster do not carry the moral high ground here as its the man & woman in the street that is most affected by these alien practices.

Protect the right to criticise religion and the state

I propose to abolish any law that restricts the right to criticise religions or the authorisies or any other group or creed as this restricts a person's right to free speech

Why is this idea important?

I propose to abolish any law that restricts the right to criticise religions or the authorisies or any other group or creed as this restricts a person's right to free speech

Subsume the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred into the existing, and perfectly adequate Incitement to Racial Hatred legislation.

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Why is this idea important?

The crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred was created to close a loophole in the previous law. The crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred already protected Jewish and Hindu people from hate-speech (being both races and religions) so the BNP decided to change their tactics to attacking Muslims (because Islam isn't a race and so they could get away with it).

 

As with the old adage, exceptions make bad law. The idea of this massive legal apparatus just to stop a BNP hate campaign that few will listen to is ill thought through. As a result of badly-drafted law, it is now illegal to criticise another's religious beliefs too strongly. Religion, unlike race, is based on belief, and is not merely a tribal affiliation – people should have the freedom to discuss the basis of their beliefs freely without fear, in order for religious groups to remain grounded in reason and avoid fundamentalism.

 

I propose that the crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred be abolished, and the crime of Incitement to Racial Hatred amended to cover not only those groups that are a 'race' by ethnicity, but also any group that views itself as connected by a filial bond in its' belief system (such as Christians, who see themselves as the adopted family of God, or Muslims, who see themselves as the spiritual descendents of Ishmael – this would also cover hatred against other groups like the Freemasons, who see themselves as brothers, or Americans, who are not a single race, but have a common affinity through their constitution and its values). This would mean it would still be a crime to incite hatred against Muslims just for being Muslims, but it would not be a crime to suggest that the belief in polygamy is a degrading idea to women.

Repeal the Act of Supremacy of 1559

Repealing the Act of Supremacy to return the Church of England to its' proper place in full communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church. The Queen would no longer be the supreme head of a state religion, which is anachronistic in our current age, though she would retain the title 'Defender of the Faith', given as it was by an earlier Pope in recognition of the role of the monarch in protecting Catholic truth. The Act of Supremacy represents an assault on the conscience of every individual, requiring (at the time) all of Her Majesty's religious subjects to acknowledge the head of state as having a power over the Church which belongs properly only to God and to His appointed apostolic vicar the Bishop of Rome. Although religious toleration has been extended in the following 500 years, this assault is still inherent in our country's constitution. All of those religious freedoms for non-Catholics would remain if this one Act was repealed.

The Church of England could, as a whole, take advantage of the invitation offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Anglicanorum Coetibus, coming home to the largest Christian Church in the world.

St Thomas More and all English Martyrs, pray for us.

Why is this idea important?

Repealing the Act of Supremacy to return the Church of England to its' proper place in full communion with the Pope and the Catholic Church. The Queen would no longer be the supreme head of a state religion, which is anachronistic in our current age, though she would retain the title 'Defender of the Faith', given as it was by an earlier Pope in recognition of the role of the monarch in protecting Catholic truth. The Act of Supremacy represents an assault on the conscience of every individual, requiring (at the time) all of Her Majesty's religious subjects to acknowledge the head of state as having a power over the Church which belongs properly only to God and to His appointed apostolic vicar the Bishop of Rome. Although religious toleration has been extended in the following 500 years, this assault is still inherent in our country's constitution. All of those religious freedoms for non-Catholics would remain if this one Act was repealed.

The Church of England could, as a whole, take advantage of the invitation offered by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical Anglicanorum Coetibus, coming home to the largest Christian Church in the world.

St Thomas More and all English Martyrs, pray for us.

The basis of the christian faith is to show love.

In this world that we live in there seem to be so many rules and regulations regarding christianity especially when it comes to the workplace. Jesus Christ was a man of compassion and love, as christians this is what we should reflect. It saddens me that as a christian when I am in certain situations  in the work place where people who are sick lonely or just generally sad or depressed when asked for prayer that I cannot just take their hand and pray with them. For some reason I have to look over my shoulder to check I am not being watched. Why is this happening?  Well apparently its because I am not allowed to share my religious beliefs. This is not FREEDOM. I feel I should be allowed to pray with people who want it where ever I am.

Why is this idea important?

In this world that we live in there seem to be so many rules and regulations regarding christianity especially when it comes to the workplace. Jesus Christ was a man of compassion and love, as christians this is what we should reflect. It saddens me that as a christian when I am in certain situations  in the work place where people who are sick lonely or just generally sad or depressed when asked for prayer that I cannot just take their hand and pray with them. For some reason I have to look over my shoulder to check I am not being watched. Why is this happening?  Well apparently its because I am not allowed to share my religious beliefs. This is not FREEDOM. I feel I should be allowed to pray with people who want it where ever I am.

Repeal the law that forbids those religions that support same sex marriages performing those marriages in their own places of worship

This is a repost of http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/allow-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies-in-places-of-worship after that title seemed to cause some confusion.

Why is this idea important?

This is a repost of http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/allow-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies-in-places-of-worship after that title seemed to cause some confusion.

End the requirement for religious broadcasting on the BBC

I would like to end the legal requirement for a percentage of the the BBC's broadcasting time to be spent on religious affairs.  The majority of people do not attend church or other religious establishments and we should not be continuously subjected to news and debate on whether there should be women bishops in the church of England etc.  If the BBC feels that there is a big enough audience for religion they should dedicate a radio station or a TV channel to that subject.  Too much news broadcast time is taken up by church affairs and we should instead be hearing about international news which is much more important.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to end the legal requirement for a percentage of the the BBC's broadcasting time to be spent on religious affairs.  The majority of people do not attend church or other religious establishments and we should not be continuously subjected to news and debate on whether there should be women bishops in the church of England etc.  If the BBC feels that there is a big enough audience for religion they should dedicate a radio station or a TV channel to that subject.  Too much news broadcast time is taken up by church affairs and we should instead be hearing about international news which is much more important.

Teach Atheism in Schools.

Time to get humanity on track after 5,000 years of utterly ridiculous fairy tales. Teach and promote atheism in schools so our children can make an informed choice about all paths open to them within the realm of theology. It is abhorrent to me that instead of basing our syllabus on rational scientific empirical knowledge, we infect our children with lies and profane inaccuracies. Stop polluting young minds and help begin pointing humanity down the road of reason over that of highly contentious and  socially divisive theology.

Why is this idea important?

Time to get humanity on track after 5,000 years of utterly ridiculous fairy tales. Teach and promote atheism in schools so our children can make an informed choice about all paths open to them within the realm of theology. It is abhorrent to me that instead of basing our syllabus on rational scientific empirical knowledge, we infect our children with lies and profane inaccuracies. Stop polluting young minds and help begin pointing humanity down the road of reason over that of highly contentious and  socially divisive theology.