Ateisti vs Njuejdžeri (argument protiv argumenta)

[Palmer]

Naravno da sam i ja za jedinstvo, ali ne za ujedinjenje putem kompromisa i org. formi već u Svetom Duhu, ako je to ikako moguće.

Svaki pokušaj ujedinjenja vodio je samo dubljim razdorima i nesuglasicama, malo li ih je bilo za vreme Vizantije i kasnije.

Treba da se menjaju odnosti između katolika, pravoslavaca, pa i protestanata, ipak mislim da treba ostati veran svojoj veri, čitao sam nešto je Solovjov baljezgario o org. ujedinjenjavaju pravoslavne i katoličke crkve i što kaže Berđajev prevaziđena je ta misao odavno. Dakle unutrašnje ujedinjenje da, ujedinjenje hrišćana apsolutno DA, spoljašnje, organizaciono, dogmatsko NE. Možda ovo deluje kao iluzija, ali eto.

[Jake Chambers]

Naravno da sam i ja za jedinstvo, ali ne za ujedinjenje putem kompromisa i org. formi već u Svetom Duhu, ako je to ikako moguće.

Svaki pokušaj ujedinjenja vodio je samo dubljim razdorima i nesuglasicama, malo li ih je bilo za vreme Vizantije i kasnije.

Treba da se menjaju odnosti između katolika, pravoslavaca, pa i protestanata, ipak mislim da treba ostati veran svojoj veri, čitao sam nešto je Solovjov baljezgario o org. ujedinjenjavaju pravoslavne i katoličke crkve i što kaže Berđajev prevaziđena je ta misao odavno. Dakle unutrašnje ujedinjenje da, ujedinjenje hrišćana apsolutno DA, spoljašnje, organizaciono, dogmatsko NE. Možda ovo deluje kao iluzija, ali eto.

Nigde, niko, nikada nije pomenuo kompromise. To je još jedan problem tih mrzitelja, oni nisu obavešteni ni o čemu.
Za pravi duh želje za ujedinjenjem treba čitati pregovore nekadašnjeg cara Jovana Kantakuzina, tj. monaha Joasafa sa papskim legatom Pavlom, o održavanju 8. vaseljenskog Sabora... preveo o. Vukašin Milićević kao master rad, sad će valjda napokon da izađe u Teološkim pogledima (ja mogu da ti pošaljem ovako).
I ne može biti drugačije ujedinjenje nego dogmatsko, to je jasno. Ali su katolici danas daleko spremniji od nas, jer smo mi u skroz drugim fazonima (ono što si pomenuo biznismeni i tako). Postojale su spoljne razlike i u prvih 1000 godina, u oblicima obreda itd, i ništa tu nije sporno. Čovek treba samo da pogleda kakve su razlike bile među pojedinim zajednicama u početku.
No i pored svega ne možemo a da ne pričamo jedni s drugima uopšte. Jer kako god obrneš, oni su nam najbliži, i imamo daleko, daleko više zajedničkog nego različitog, a na polju etike i socijalne teologije smo skoro potpuno isti. Tako da tu nema nikakvih prepreka za saradnju.


A usput, baš vladika Nikolaj je na sva usta hvalio anglikance (kažu da je čak pričestio neke u Sabornoj Crkvi... mada sam čuo da je to zapravo neko drugi uradio), a oni su eto danas među onima koji su se najviše udaljili od izvora.

[Boban]

A da ipak pobijemo sve popove, sveštenike i ostale verosere pa da vidimo šta će onda biti... onako, eksperimenta radi, jedno hiljadu godina bez verske zatucanosti.

[Jake Chambers]

A da ipak pobijemo sve popove, sveštenike i ostale verosere pa da vidimo šta će onda biti... onako, eksperimenta radi, jedno hiljadu godina bez verske zatucanosti.

Nema šanse, sutradan bi dobio neko novo sranje.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa nisu popovi sišli s neba pa okovali slobodan duh naivnog naroda. Ljudi i zajednice imaju nesumnjivu metafizičku potrebu i proizvodnja organizovane religije i klera je očigledno jedan od socijalno najlogičnijih načina da se ona zadovolji. Dakle, kao što ubijanjem svih dilera narkotika ne bismo izbrisali problem bolesti zavisnosti, kao što ubijanjem svih fudbalera ne bismo zatrli organizovane sportove, tako i ovde klericid svakako nije rešenje.

[Tex Murphy]

tako i ovde klericid svakako nije rešenje.

А мачкоцид? 

[Meho Krljic]

Strogo govoreći bilo bi felinecid.

[Tex Murphy]

Strogo govoreći bilo bi felinecid.

Where's the fun in that???

[scallop]

Trebalo je da napišeš - mačkomor.

[Loni]

Ujediniće se svi hrišćani iz vrlo prostog razloga.
Što svima pada rejting.

Katoličanstvo je procentualno svuda jako oslabilo. Po statistikama samo u Poljskoj i Hrvatskoj se od 2000. pa naovamo povećao broj katolika.
U svim ostalim zemaljama beleži se veliki pad.

U SAD svih hrišćana zajedno bilo je 85 %, posle samo decenije broj je pao na 76 %. Pad od 9 % za samo 10 godina je ogroman pad. Maltene najavljuje kraj hrišćanstva do 2100.
U Brazilu je hrišćana trenutno oko 80, a bilo ih je 90 %.
Iste tendencije u Irskoj, Holandiji, Belgiji, a u Francuskoj je broj hrišćana odavno pao ispod polovine.

Kao što su kod nas partije nalik SPO-u morale da odustanu od samostalnih izlazaka na izbore i prišaltaju se opoziciji, isto će biti i sa hrišćanima u budućnosti.
Shvatiće se da su razlike premale da bi se otimali za puk.

Jedino bi mi bilo žao da se u ujedinjenju popusti katolicima što se tiče imidža ,,ćosavosti''.
Monasi bolje izgledaju s bradicama nego bez njih.
Svaka institucija koja tera ljude na brijanje (vojska, policija) zaslužuje da propadne.
Moja poruka (brijem se jednom u 4-5 dana) je - Principa se odriči, brad'ce nikad!  gomilax

[Jake Chambers]

Ne brini, neće se naši odreći brade... takve razlike su postojale i ranije i nebitne su.

Nego, Loni, imaš pp.
Forum izgleda ne obaveštava baš kad imaš novu poruku. 

[Meho Krljic]

Obaveštava. Dobija se popup, ali to moraš da aktiviraš ako ti nije aktivirano. Idi u profile, pa klikni modify profile pa tu izaberi personal messaging i aktiviraj notifikaciju.

[Jake Chambers]

Meni je aktiviran, ali izgleda da je default opcija da ne bude aktiviran pa ne iskače bukvalno nikakvo obaveštenje.

Inače, ujedinjenje se može desiti ne samo zbog rejtinga (ako sad zanemarimo stvarnu versku potrebu za ujedinjenjem), nego i zbog najezde... onih finih ljudi sa istoka.

[mac]

Budista i hinduista? Nisu svi oni baš toliko fini. A šintoisti su najgori od svih...

[Loni]

Odgovorio ti Džekonjo.
Ja uopšte ne dobijam potvrde o porukicama.

Apropo budizma i hunduizma, nije dokazano da su ti vernici boji,
jedino što je fakt je da imaju više vegetarijanaca.
Zapravo retko ko u Indiji i jede meso.

S obzirom da je Indiju izjedalo siromaštvo vekovima,
ona kao jedna od ukupno 2 zemlje u kojima hinduizam dominantan (drugi je takođe siromašni Nepal),
i ne može biti reper te religije.

Zamislimo kada bismo hrišćanstvo imali samo u Tanzaniji, Keniji, Ugandi ili u Paragvaju/Boliviji ili na Haitiju.

Da hinduisti imaju svoju Švedsku i Nemačku (u smislu standarda) onda bismo videli šta izranja ta civilizacija.

- Boban se zapita na jednom mestu - šta bi bilo da se svi popvi pobiju, a religije zabrane ?
Pa već imamo neke takva društva. Recimo Severnu Koreju.
Službeno je ateistička država pa ne videh neki um i blagodet.
Ono što videh je da građani mnogo više pate i kukaju (gtovo urliču) za preminulim vođom nego što bi patili da veruju u zagroban život.

Moju komšinicu koja je izgubila sina, decenijama je održavala vera da će se jednom ponovo sa njim sresti.
Da nije te vere pala bi u depresiju, možda i preminula od tuge.
Nije problem vera, već KOJA VERA?
Opredelio bih se za onu koja širi toleranciju i razumevanje.

[Jake Chambers]

Pa u teoriji sve to čine. 

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Лони, немаш појма, опет износиш нетачности, опет "податак" изнесен на основу предрасуда, не чињеница. У Северној Кореји религија није забрањена. Они своје храмове, као и сва остала национална обележја, пажљиво одржавају и заштићени су као национална блага. Међутим, држава не дозвољава свештенству да има много утицаја, а уз то постоји и замена за религију у виду државне идеологије. Узгред, у СК делују три партије, да не лупиш некад да је реч о једнопартијском систему. А што је занимљиво, једна од тих партија је верска, што је прилично оригиналан начин контроле дела свештенства.

А ево и делимичног списка будистичких храмова, што им је по бројности тек трећа религија, али су им храмови најатрактивнији (слике нађи сам):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_temples_in_North_Korea

[Kimura]

A da ipak pobijemo sve popove, sveštenike i ostale verosere pa da vidimo šta će onda biti...

Najverovatnije ništa.
Svaka vlast teži da se sa materijalnog protegne i na druge sfere.

[Loni]

Лони, немаш појма, опет износиш нетачности, опет "податак" изнесен на основу предрасуда, не чињеница. У Северној Кореји религија није забрањена. Они своје храмове, као и сва остала национална обележја, пажљиво одржавају и заштићени су као национална блага. Међутим, држава не дозвољава свештенству да има много утицаја, а уз то постоји и замена за религију у виду државне идеологије. Узгред, у СК делују три партије, да не лупиш некад да је реч о једнопартијском систему. А што је занимљиво, једна од тих партија је верска, што је прилично оригиналан начин контроле дела свештенства.

А ево и делимичног списка будистичких храмова, што им је по бројности тек трећа религија, али су им храмови најатрактивнији (слике нађи сам):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_temples_in_North_Korea

A gde sam ja rekao da je religija tamo zabranjena.
U mom postu piše samo da je S.Koreja službeno ateistička zemlja.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

- Boban se zapita na jednom mestu - šta bi bilo da se svi popvi pobiju, a religije zabrane ?
Pa već imamo neke takva društva. Recimo Severnu Koreju.

То што је званично атеистичка држава не значи да су религије забрањене. На примеру ДПРК се види да постоји званично атеистичка држава која има званичну партију једне од тамошњих религија.

[Palmer]

Одвојих мало времена и  извињавам се унапред на опширности... Јa очигледно  читам из погрешних извора и причам са погрешним људима кад је теологија у питању, али ме занима разрешење неких дилема, пошто нисам никако из те приче, али ме ето, занима.

Дакле зар цела поента екуменизма није то да све сви ујединимо у Папи тј све религије, секте итд и да сви признају папу за врховног поглавара, а не да сви будемо једно у Христу, камо лепе среће да је то дијалог, разговор итд те ствари нису спорне и оне трају већ вековима између свих религијских заједница, док је екуменизам чист паганизам на основу онога што сам видео, чуо, прочитао, мислим, шта ако је разлог што је Јустин избачен јер је говорио  је да је Ватикан свејерес, никад није признавао папу и говорио је да је јеретик, каже постоје три пада у човечанству а то су кад је Адам отпао од Бога, кад је Јуда издао Бога и кад је Папа себе прогласио за Бога (што је заправо било и у Византији, титула Понтифекс Максимус је пренета из Рима), а о томе причају и Достојевски и гомила руских мислиоца и теолога (што опет ниеј доказ јер су Срби познати по недостатку нијансирања, што си рекао оно: ако ј енеко добар светитељ мора да је добар и за све, или ако је неко добар Писац, онда је добар и теолошки мислилац, политички тумач, итд,),

Ватикан хоће преко мача, пара и политике да пороби, покатоличи итд.. то раде пуних 1000 година на свим странама света (погледаш само шта су радили на нашим просторима), не желе они дијалог и да преговарају већ само корист и интерес, својиој форми.

Е да додам разговарао сам  са једним борским студентом телогије који ми каже да је Исус био екумениста, каже тако их уче на факултету, а то је већ опасно и жалосно, УКОЛИКО је то тако.

Слажем се са овим да нису сви свеци безгрешни и идеални и једни су имали изражене те и те особине и способности, други неке друге нико није био обдарен са свим, по мени највећи значај Николаја није у томе што има 4 доктората и што је био владика, већ што је успео да веру принесе и приближи народу и што је нон стоп био са народом, што је мисионарио, водио богомољачки покрет, супростављао се стању у цркви итд,

И  види се да је писао за народ а не за филозофе и теологе, све што је написао може и неписмем човек да разуме и зато га је народ волео и поштовао, поента је је код црквених лица да мисионаре и да буду са народом што се данас полако губи а можда се и изгубило.

е да додам још нешто о екуменизму у краљевини схс нпр за време конкордата тј кад наша влада изгласа конгордат са католицима једино је Николај и патријарх Варнава устао у одбрану вере, епилог је патријарх је убијен (отрован) а на владику исвршен неуспешан атентат и десила се такозвана крвава литија где су православни добили такве батине толико о искрености дијалога са ватиканом, не пишем и не користи католичанство јер имам и другаре катилике а ватикан није религиска заједница већ држава која има свог поглавара, има своју банку, има своју своскуи полицију, има своја тајна друштва и има превелики утицај у свету и сви који су им се супроставили нису лепо пролазили кроз историју, немам ништа против ни једне религијске заједнице што каже Пејаковић свако жели да тражи Бога треба га пустити али не свиђа ми се кад неко пљује и вређа што је моје и уверава да треба да признам Папу јер је то сад пожељно, и завршио би за изјавом Хочевара (католички кардинал у србији) НЕ МОЖЕ ТЕ ВИ СРБИ СА СВЕТИМ САВОМ У ЕВРОПУ, толико о екуменистичком дијалогу, мада је он реко и горе ствари, али он је представник ватикана а не верних бар по мом мишљењу.

дакле јединиство у Духу а не у Папи је оно што је циљ, питање је само ралучити шта је теорија завере а шта није..

[Jake Chambers]

Rimokatolička Crkva koliko znam uopšte nije zvanično u Svetskom savetu crkava.
I ne, ekumenizam nije nikakav pokret da svi budu jedno u papi. Ekumenizam neki smatraju spajanjem svih u neki amalgam, mi pravoslavni ga posmatramo onako kako sam već opisao. Takođe, pominjaće ti neki sporni dokument koji su i naši potpisali 2006, a u kojem se potvrđuje da je papa prvih 1000 godina imao primat časti. Artemijevci (jer su većina tih budala iz njegovih redova) to nazivaju spornim, ali to naprosto nije sporno.

Takođe, treba imati u vidu da se vremena i ljudi menjaju. Ne možemo za sebe pričati kako smo jadni i žrtve, a zanemarivati da je Dušan porobio šta je već sve bio porobio. Katolici su, ponavljam, daleko, daleko spremniji od nas za otvoren dijalog i čak i za ustupke (koje su nam čak i nudili), ali mi nismo jedinstveni. A nismo jedinstveni jer zbog nacionalizacije crkava (što je bio ok koncept ali je krenuo naopako) svaka pomesna Crkva hoće da bude glavna (odnosno Rusija hoće da bude glavna), jer se na kraju krajeva sve, ali sve sve sve sve SVE vrti oko veličine teritorije koju kontrolišeš i samim tim oko para.
Dalje, zvanično papizam nikad nije osuđen kao jeres. I zvanično nikada šizma nije postojala između celog istoka i celog zapada. To je svađa dvojice patrijaraha, i anateme su skinute na Sv. Nikolu po novom kalendaru, mislim 1964. godine. Ali su razlike nastale vremenom prevelike da bi jedinstvo tako moglo biti uspostavljeno. GLUPOST i PREGLUPOST je reći da je Justin "izbačen" jer je to pričao za papu. I uopšte priča o svejeresi je smešna i čak nedokaziva da je Justin uopšte govorio. Ima njegova knjiga o "pravoslavnom ikumenizmu". Ljudi kao što vole Jovanu Zlatoustom i drugim svetiteljima da podmeću svašta, podmeću i Justinu. I da naša Crkva ima nešto protiv Justina, pobogu, ne bi ga proglasili za svetitelja. Naprosto njegov udžbenik je malo prevaziđen i aktuelni profesor ima one koje hoće i tačka. I još nešto - Vatikan najbolje baš tako, utičući već stolećima preko takvih budala, gura svoje. Rekoh već, vera kako je shvataju ti ljudi je čist srednjevekovni rimokatolicizam. A otkud on ovde? Pa preko Rusije! Kako preko Rusije? Pa fino, Petar Veliki je dosta toga sa zapada doneo u Rusiju, i današnje hrišćanstvo u Rusiji, da bi dobio čisto hrišćanstvo, more čovek kroz debelo sito i rešeto da protera. Oni su sa tim običajima i tradicijama i raznim malim sektama milion puta gori od nas. Ali mi smo to sve od njih dobili u 17-18. veku i do danas se to drži kod nas kao "starinski", a ovo što određene vladike pokušavaju da uspostave ponovo ispravan poredak liturgije se naziva "novim". Naravno, praznoglavcima je 200 godina "tradicija", a 1000 godina "novo".
I nije poenta samo biti razuman za narod, bitno je ne podilaziti narodnom sujeverju i mutljavini od vere. A on (Nikolaj) je to em delimično radio, em i kad nije radio, narod je shvatao tako. I danas shvata. Poenta je NAUČITI narod ispravno, ali to nikog ne zanima. Jer narod neće ispravno. Hoće po svom. I džaba njemu ili bilo kome ako je pričao protiv pape, kada je istovremeno hvalio anglikance...
I kako Isus nije bio ekumenista? Pa nije rekao "idite krstite Jevreje" ili "idite krstite Srbe", rekao je "idite krstite sve narode", a ekumenu činimo svi Žalosno je kako je društvo danas generalno slabo s jezikom, posebno akademska javnost i studenti kako ne znaju neke najosnovnije termine ni svoje struke, a kamoli malo šire...

i za kraj: Hočevar to NIJE rekao. Na stranu što čoveka poznajem lično, da on tako nešto misli, sigurno ne bi imao fresku/mozaik sv. Save zajedno s Ćirilom i Metodijem u crkvi Blažene Djevice Marije na Neimaru

A kako razlučiti šta je istina, a šta teorija zavere... pa istina nikad ne ide "protiv"... (kao ono ispovedanje vere protiv čega već što šire okolo)... istina ne seje strah i mržnju... a meni je bar lako, ja sam "gore visoko" pa vidim svojim očima.

[Palmer]

Što bi se reklo: ''Mudro zboriš bledoliki.'' Svaka ti je ka u Njegoša, eto ni Njegoša smo se odrekli!!    šalim se ofc, a u svakoj šali pola Boga. Dobro, nešto sam i ubo, znaš kako kažu: ''I pokvaren sat je tačan dvaput dnevno.''

Ovo za Petrovu reformu je super zapažanje, to približavanje zapadnom prosvećenom apsolutizmu i rast snage plemstva, malo li je Dostojevski pisao o tome. Takođe mi je bilo fenomenalno otkriće da je npr. prvi slobodouman čovek u Rusiji bio mason, Novikov, ali to buđenje svesti, što reče ili slobodoumne interkonf. tipa bez dublje pravoslavne osnove za vreme Aleksandra I nije bilo usmereno samo na pobunu protiv imperatorske Rusije ne samo u odnosu na zapadnjake, već i protiv domaćih slovenofila. meni je npr zanimljio što su potpuno bili razdvojeni svetovi genijalnosti, Pučkin s jedne strane i svetovi svetosti Serafim Sorovski s druge, živeli ljudi u isto vreme a da se nisu ni poznavali. Ali iako su Rusi po prirodi dogmatičari pravi, i imajau tu mesijansku prirodu i to što sve dobija religoizna karakter, meni je njihov 18-19. vek u svakom pogledu fenomenalan.

Kažem, ne da nisam pristalica teorija zavera i tog mračnog tradicionalizma gde Duh tupka u mestu ili je u opadanju, nego mi to ide na  živce, i trudim se da na hrišćanstvo gledam kao na religiju slobode i ne trpim determinizam i fatalizam, ali uvek mi nekako iz prikrajka vrebaju pipci imperijalizma i onog piramidalnog papizma gde je sve u hijerarhiji, formi i gde se duša gradi kao tvrđava ili je to moja paranoja.

I dok se ne skonta matrica da Rus/Srbin mora da bude pravoslavac ne zato što je pravoslavlje istina nego zato što je bilo nacionalno istorijska snaga i zato što je formiralo državu i kulturu, nećemo mnogo odmaći u tumačenju i živjenju hrišćanstva po NZ. I da, još jedna stvar me nervira, kad npr. kažu ti domaći crnostoti(naši) a i sam sam razmišljao tako, tipa da je se krvavo pirovanje u srednjem veku stavlja na račun isključivo hrišćanstva i katoličke crkve.. kao da ljudski urođeni  varvarizam nije ima svoj deo odgovornosti, dakle krivi su hrišćani, a ne hrišćanstvo.. elem, za taj master rad super,  hvala, biti će pročitano ako imaš na kompu da mi nekako pošalješ. nmg više se bakćem marketiinškim stvarima, da se opustim malo

[Jake Chambers]

Naravno da imam, pošalji mi mail na pp.

Nego još jedna vrlo bitna stvar koju ti "anti-papisti" (a papa pravoslavniji od njih) uporno zaboravljaju (odnosno ni ne znaju)... njima su usta puna Sv. Otaca, i čitali su Sv. Oce i Sv. Oci ovo, Sv. Oci ono... pritom oni ni ne znaju šta i ko se podrazumeva pod Sv. Ocima, niti da toga do skoro na srpskom uopšte nije ni bilo... a oni ne znaju ni srpski kako treba, a kamoli da su čitali na nekom drugom jeziku.

I zar nije fenomenalno zapažanje za Rusiju? I naravno uvek je fenomenalan šok reći tako nekom zadrtom da su nam zapadni uticaji došli upravo preko Rusije (tipa zvonce na liturgiji u toku epikleze, to nema nigde u Pravoslavlju, to je došlo od katolika, preko Rusa! ) 

[Loni]

- Boban se zapita na jednom mestu - šta bi bilo da se svi popvi pobiju, a religije zabrane ?
Pa već imamo neke takva društva. Recimo Severnu Koreju.

То што је званично атеистичка држава не значи да су религије забрањене. На примеру ДПРК се види да постоји званично атеистичка држава која има званичну партију једне од тамошњих религија.

Pardon. Moja greška. Očigledno sam propustio da ispišem rečenicu između.
Nisu religije zabranjene, ali je službeno ateistička.
I ne vidim da je zbog toga to društvo bolje od drugih. Malo je reći naprotiv.

[Palmer]

I zar nije fenomenalno zapažanje za Rusiju? I naravno uvek je fenomenalan šok reći tako nekom zadrtom da su nam zapadni uticaji došli upravo preko Rusije (tipa zvonce na liturgiji u toku epikleze, to nema nigde u Pravoslavlju, to je došlo od katolika, preko Rusa! ) 

Zadrtim ljudima ne vredi ni pričati, kad neko ne razume istorijski kontekst, džaba mu objašnjavati da je sudbina pravoslavne crkve u 19. veku zavisila od npr. Hegelove filozofije, i državotvoran i kulturni uticaj Nemaca na Rrusiju, Rusije na Srbiju, ali dobro trudim se, a teško mi ide,   da se ne naslađujem nečijim neznanjem jer ga i sam imam podosta. 

[Tex Murphy]

Не слушајте Џејка, он је босански атеистички инфилтратор из Босне.

[Meho Krljic]

Pošto smo na ovom topiku svašta nešto lupetali glede evolucije i nismo shvatali koliko je to složen mehanizam, evo jednog ful metal naučnog rada koji govori o tome kako evolucija pokatkad favorizuje iracionalno ponašanje:

Natural selection can favour 'irrational' behaviour

Abstract

Understanding decisions is the fundamental aim of the behavioural sciences. The theory of rational choice is based on axiomatic principles such as transitivity and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA). Empirical studies have demonstrated that the behaviour of humans and other animals often seems irrational; there can be a lack of transitivity in choice and seemingly irrelevant alternatives can alter decisions. These violations of transitivity and IIA undermine rational choice theory. However, we show that an individual that is maximizing its rate of food gain can exhibit failure of transitivity and IIA. We show that such violations can be caused because a current option may disappear in the near future or a better option may reappear soon. Current food options can be indicative of food availability in the near future, and this key feature can result in apparently irrational behaviour.

[scallop]

Možda mi ne znamo šta je racionalno, a šta iracionalno ponašanje.

[Meho Krljic]

Da, pa ovaj rad to i pokušava da redefiniše, govoreći o tome da teorija trazitivnosti (ako preferiram B u odnosu na C a A u odnosu na B onda ću uvek izabrati A ako je izbor između A i C) nije baš tako prosta kad se stvari događaju u stvarnom svetu.

[Tex Murphy]

nismo shvatali koliko je to složen mehanizam

Како може бити сложено нешто што не постоји?

[Meho Krljic]

Može, evo recimo, Zvezda Smrti iz Zvezdanih ratova ne postoji u konvencionalnom smislu ali je očigledno složen sistem u pitanju. 

[scallop]

nismo shvatali koliko je to složen mehanizam

Како може бити сложено нешто што не постоји?

A da ti negde artikulišeš kontra argumente? Stigao si dotle da je za pobijanje tvojih stavova dovoljna i Zvezda Smrti. Budi vernik, ali nemoj da nas mučiš sa kreacionizmom.

[Meho Krljic]

Ma, dobro, to se Harvester samo šali, perpetuira svoju forumsku personu hrišćanskog fundamentaliste tim deadpan izjavama. Naravno da on dobro zna da nepostojeće stvari mogu biti složene. Mislim, matematičar je, zna da, barem sa strane naše percepcije ne postoji prostor od recimo 19 dimenzija, ali da ga matematika lako opiše i da je složen.

[Tex Murphy]

Хихи

[Origen]

Pozdrav svima!
Relativno sam nov na ovom forumu i video sam ovo temu, pa rekoh da kazem i ja svoje misljenje. Nisam bas najbolje iscitao sta ste vi sve ovde pisali, tako da se unapred izvinjavam ako budem ponavljao ono sto je vec bilo napisano.

Najvecu paznju mi je privukao prvi post, pogotovo onaj deo koji govori o "Abrahamistickim" (kako ne volim taj izraz!) religijama, jer sam i ja pripadnik jedne, tj. smatram sebe za Pravoslavnog Hriscanina. No, da malo prokomentarisem par stvari koje je Loni izneo:

Česte su rasprave između ateista i avramista.
Slušajući ih, ateisti gotovo uvek ispadaju pobednici jer
- teško je odbraniti tezu o starosti sveta u hiljadama, a ne u milionima godina
- teško je odbraniti tezu da nikakve evolucije nije bilo
- teško opravdati humanost boga koji spaljuje sela i gradove (stari zavet)
ili humanost sistema koji većini predviđa večni pakao.

Prvo, nije tacno da ateisti uvek budu pobednici!
http://www.vesti-online.com/Vesti/Svet/290157/Nadbiskup-i-ateista-u-debati-Kome-se-vise-veruje

Drugo, nije tacno da svi vernici govore da je Zemlja stara hiljadama godina i da nije bilo evolucije! Te teze brane samo oni koji u najgrubljem bukvalnom smislu tumace Bibliju, tj. kreacionisti, koje ne prihvataju ni pravoslavni ni rimokatolici, a ni dobar broj protestanata (ne mislim na polupismene ekstremiste, vec na ucene teologe).

Sto se tice (ne)humanosti Boga, tu se vecina oslanja na Stari zavet. To nije nista novo. Jos su gnostici odbacivali Stari zavet zbog toga. Po meni, takve stvari u Bibliji nemaju toliko veze sa Bogom, vec sa tim kako je covek tog vremena posmatrao Boga. Jevreji su u to vreme bili ponizeni i uvredjeni, tako da je veliki broj njih posmatrao Boga kao onoga ko ce njihovim ugnjetatorima uzvratiti istom merom. Naravno, imamo i svetlih primera u Starom zavetu koji se ne bave takvim stvarima, na primer Price Solomonove.
I zasto se niko od tih vajnih kriticara Hriscanstva ne pozove na Hristove reci na krstu ("Oprosti im Oce jer ne znaju sta cine")?

I poslednje, nije tacno da se vecini predvidja vecni pakao! Cak postoji i ucenje o apokatastazisu (jeste li do sada culi za to?). To ucenje je prvi izneo Origen. Do duse, ono je odbacena, ali postoji dobar broj teologa koji ga zastupa. Cak i neki od najistaknutijih svetih otaca, koji su bili veliki borci protiv jeresi, poput Grigorija Niskog, Isaka Sirina, Maksima ispovednika..., su bili zastupnici tog ucenja. Ono govori da Bog, po svojoj neogranicenoj milosti, nece odbaciti one koji su otpali od Njega (cak ni demone i Satanu!), vec da ce za njih i posle Suda postojati sansa. Ucenje je odbaceno zato sto je Origen govorio da ce u dan Suda odmah doci do apokatastazisa, pa se prema tome ukida ljudska sloboda, tj. svi bi bili prinudjeni da budu u zajednici sa Bogom, cak i oni koji ne zele (da, u paklu nece biti oni koji zele da budu u zajednici sa Bogom, ali je kantar za dlaku prevagnuo na drugu stranu, vec oni koji potpuno odbacuju Boga). Kasnije se ovo ucenje iskristalisalo i govori da nece niko od gresnika i demona biti primoran da stupi u ponovnu zajednicu sa Bogom, vec da ce se njima i posle Suda (kada vec budu bili u paklu) dati sansa da se svojevoljno priklone Bogu.

Nadam se da sam bio jasan pri iznosenju svojih stavova, a ako nisam pojasnicu.

[Albedo 0]

i ne samo to, ti si upravo stigao u Pakao a da nisi toga ni svjestan!

[Origen]

i ne samo to, ti si upravo stigao u Pakao a da nisi toga ni svjestan!

Ja verujem u apokatastazis, tako da...

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, da, ali kako da se spaseš pakla kad nisi ni svestan da si u njemu? To je izgleda ta lukavost lukavogo, da te dovuče ovamo, baci među sitne demone a da ti misliš da imaš šanse za spasenje...

[Albedo 0]

i ne samo to, ti si upravo stigao u Pakao a da nisi toga ni svjestan!

Ja verujem u apokatastazis, tako da...

ovdje zavisimo od dobre volje Bobana da nas obavijesti kad počne taj Sudnji dan

[Ugly MF]

Meho i Bata zajebavaju jadne male vernike zalutale na sagitu..ts,ts,ts...
Aman, ljudi...

[Albedo 0]

svi smo mi nekad bili neiskvarene duše a onda smo zalutali na Sagitu

[Origen]

Ehm, shvatih i sam da je ovo samo zaebancija. 

[Ugly MF]

Ko na Sagiti ostane vernik, nijedno mu iskusenje nece tesko pasti!!!

[Meho Krljic]

Sve ovo u dobroj nameri i sa osmehom na licu, naravno.

[Meho Krljic]

Inače, evo kako u državnim školama u Teksasu uče biologiju. Mnoge teme u ovom tekstu smo već ovde pretresali, pa sam boldovao određene delove, ali ceo tekst je zanimljiv:

Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

An investigation into charter schools' dishonest and unconstitutional science, history, and "values" lessons.
  When public-school students enrolled in Texas' largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is "sketchy." That evolution is "dogma" and an "unproved theory" with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.
     The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were "pagans in various levels of civilization." They'll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a "surrogate husband."
   Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.
 
  Infiltrating and subverting the charter-school movement has allowed Responsive Ed to carry out its religious agenda—and it is succeeding. Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.
   Charter schools may be run independently, but they are still public schools, and through an open records request, I was able to obtain a set of Responsive Ed's biology "Knowledge Units," workbooks that Responsive Ed students must complete to pass biology. These workbooks both overtly and underhandedly discredit evidence-based science and allow creationism into public-school classrooms.
   A favorite creationist claim is that there is "uncertainty" in the fossil record, and Responsive Ed does not disappoint. The workbook cites the "lack of a single source for all the rock layers as an argument against evolution."
   I asked Ken Miller, a co-author of the Miller-Levine Biology textbook published by Pearson and one of the most widely used science textbooks on the market today, to respond to claims about the fossil record and other inaccuracies in the Responsive Ed curriculum. (It's worth noting that creationists on the Texas State Board of Education recently tried, and failed, to block the approval of Miller's textbook because it teaches evolution.)
 
  "Of course there is no 'single source' for all rock layers," Miller told me over email. "However, the pioneers of the geological sciences observed that the sequence of distinctive rock layers in one place (southern England, for example) could be correlated with identical layers in other places, and eventually merged into a single system of stratigraphy. All of this was established well before Darwin's work on evolution."
   The workbook also claims, "Some scientists even question the validity of the conclusions concerning the age of the Earth." As Miller pointed out, "The statement that 'some scientists question,' is a typical way that students can be misled into thinking that there is serious scientific debate about the age of the Earth or the nature of the geological record. The evidence that the Earth was formed between 4 and 5 billion years ago is overwhelming."
   Another Responsive Ed section claims that evolution cannot be tested, something biologists have been doing for decades. It misinforms students by claiming, "How can scientists do experiments on something that takes millions of years to accomplish? It's impossible."
   The curriculum tells students that a "lack of transitional fossils" is a "problem for evolutionists who hold a view of uninterrupted evolution over long periods of time."
   "The assertion that there are no 'transitional fossils' is false," Miller responded. "We have excellent examples of transitional forms documenting the evolution of amphibians, mammals, and birds, to name some major groups. We also have well-studied transitional forms documenting the evolution of whales, elephants, horses, and humans."
 
  Evolution is not a scientific controversy, and there are no competing scientific theories. All of the evidence supports evolution, and the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the evidence for it.
   Another tactic creationists often use is to associate evolution with eugenics. One Responsive Ed quiz even asks students, "With regards to social Darwinism, do you think humans who are not capable should be left to die out, or should they be helped?"
   "They imply that the control of human reproduction and the abandonment of people who might be 'left to die' are elements of evolutionary theory," Miller said. "This is false, and the authors of these questions surely know that."
   Outright creationism appears in Responsive Ed's section on the origins of life. It's not subtle. The opening line of the workbook section, just as the opening line of the Bible, declares, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth."
   Responsive Ed's butchering of evolution isn't the only part of its science curriculum that deserves an F; it also misinforms students about vaccines and mauls the scientific method.
 
  The only study linking vaccines to autism was exposed as a fraud and has been retracted, and the relationship has been studied exhaustively and found to be nonexistent. But a Responsive Ed workbook teaches, "We do not know for sure whether vaccines increase a child's chance of getting autism, but we can conclude that more research needs to be done."
   On the scientific method, Responsive Ed confuses scientific theories and laws. It argues that theories are weaker than laws and that there is a natural progression from theories into laws, all of which is incorrect.
   The Responsive Ed curriculum undermines Texas schoolchildren's future in any possible career in science.
   Dan Quinn, the communications director for the Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog organization that monitors the religious right, said, "These materials should raise a big red flag for any parent or school administrator. It's bad enough that they promote the same discredited anti-evolution arguments that scientists debunked a long time ago. But the materials also veer into teaching religious beliefs that the courts have repeatedly ruled have no place in a public school science classroom."
   When it's not directly quoting the Bible, Responsive Ed's curriculum showcases the current creationist strategy to compromise science education, which the National Center for Science Education terms "stealth creationism."
   In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creationism is unconstitutional. In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Judge John Jones III ruled in federal district court that intelligent design is still creationism and equally unconstitutional.
 
  To get around court rulings, Responsive Ed and other creationists resort to rhetoric about teaching "all sides" of "competing theories" and claiming that this approach promotes "critical thinking."
   In response to a question about whether Responsive Ed teaches creationism, its vice president of academic affairs, Rosalinda Gonzalez, told me that the curriculum "teaches evolution, noting,but not exploring, the existence of competing theories."
   Bringing creationism into a classroom by undermining evolution and "noting ... competing theories" is still unconstitutional. What's more, contrary to Gonzalez's statement, teaching about supernatural creation in the section on the origins of life is doing far more than noting competing theories.
   In a previous Slate column on the Texas textbook wars, I explained that Texas' current science standards were designed to compromise the teaching of evolution. The standards require teachers to "analyze, evaluate, and critique" evolution and teach "all sides" of evolution to encourage "critical thinking." These requirements are a back-door way to enable teachers to attack evolution and inject creationism into the classroom. If teachers are questioned on their materials, they can shift the responsibility for what they're teaching onto the state.
   I asked Gonzalez if these science standards played a role in Responsive Ed's curriculum on evolution, and her answer was yes.
      Last month, science won the day in the battle over textbooks, and Texas adopted texts that teach evolution. But schools don't necessarily have to adhere to this list of textbooks. They can choose, as Responsive Ed does, to use alternative textbooks, which may teach creationism.
   Policymakers must understand that on a fundamental level teaching creationism is still unconstitutional. The Texas Legislature could take action to regulate these charter schools. The state Senate Education Committee is currently investigating another charter program due to its ties to the Pelican Educational Foundation, which has been under FBI investigation for alleged financial improprieties and alleged sexual misconduct. Sen. Dan Patrick, chair of the Texas Senate Education Committee and a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, told theAustin American-Statesman that "legislative scrutiny is necessary to ensure quality in Texas charter schools."
   It's high time for Patrick to give some legislative scrutiny to Responsive Ed. But in reality, he is a big fan of the program, which he "lauded in particular" at the Responsive Ed Charter Conference. It's no wonder; he's also a creationist. In a recent debate, Patrick said that he would help pass a law to allow creationism to be taught in public schools because, "We need to stand for what this nation was founded upon, which is the word of God."
   Patrick, who has not responded to requests for comment on Responsive Ed, is not the only leading Republican in Texas ready to toss out evolution or the separation of church and state. In fact, every Republican in the race for lieutenant governor in Texas, the incumbent included, is putting a religious agenda ahead of public education. David Dewhurst, the current lieutenant governor, said he "happens 'to believe in creationism.'"
   Greg Abbott, the current attorney general and front-runner in the Texas governor's race, seems to be of a similar mindset. One piece of his campaign literature shows a gun and a Bible and includes the phrase, "Two things that every American should know how to use ... Neither of which are taught in schools." Abbott's campaign hasn't responded to questions about Responsive Ed or creationism in schools.
   

* * *

Science isn't the only target of the religious right. The movement also undermines the study of history. I received a set of Responsive Ed U.S. history "Knowledge Units" through my public records request and discovered problems there, too.
 
  In the section on the causes of World War I, the study materials suggest that "anti-Christian bias" coming out of the Enlightenment helped create the foundations for the war. The workbook states, "[T]he abandoning of religious standards of conduct and the breakdown in respect for governmental authority would lead to one of two options: either anarchy or dictatorship would prevail in the absence of a monarch." Responsive Ed also asserts that a person's values are based on solely his or her religious beliefs.
   A section on World War II suggests that Japan's military aggression was led by the samurai. They write, "Following World War I, Japan attempted to solve its economic and social problems by military means. The Samurai, a group promoting a military approach to create a vast Japanese empire in Asia, wanted to expand Japan's influence along the Chinese mainland including many Pacific Islands."
   I asked one of my former professors about this. Rich Smith, an East Asia scholar at Rice University, said,  "There were no samurai in Japan after WWI; the samurai class was effectively abolished in 1876, after the Meiji Restoration in 1868."
   Responsive Ed continues to demonstrate its religious and cultural biases in a section on the Philippines, describing the population as made up of "Catholics, Moslems (Muslims), and pagans in various stages of civilization."
   When discussing stem cells, it claims President George W. Bush banned stem-cell research because it was done "primarily with the cells from aborted babies." The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine debunks this on its website: "A common misconception is that the cells can come from aborted fetuses, which is in fact not possible."
 
  About LGBTQ rights, Responsive Ed says, "Laws against the homosexual lifestyle had been repealed in many states, but some states continued to ban the behavior." The homosexual lifestyle?
   About President Franklin Roosevelt, it teaches, "The New Deal had not helped the economy. However, it ushered in a new era of dependency on the Federal government."
   Perhaps the workbook's best line comes when it explains that President Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft dodgers out of "a misguided sense of compassion."
   One of Responsive Ed's schools, Founders Classical Academy in Lewisville, Texas, where Responsive Ed is based, uses a curriculum far worse even than the Responsive Ed Knowledge Units. The school teaches American history from A Patriot's History of the United States. The patriots book is "required reading," according to Glenn Beck, and it opens with an interview between Rush Limbaugh and the author. It is a book that, as Dave Weigel says, "will make you stupider."
   This book teaches the superiority of the West, which in the 1400s and 1500s was apparently "quantum leaps" ahead of "native peoples," including Ming Dynasty China, one of the most prosperous Chinese dynasties. It explains that the West was superior to "native populations" in battles because "Aztec chiefs and Moor sultans alike were completely vulnerable to massed firepower, yet without the legal framework of republicanism and civic virtue like Europe's to replace its leadership cadre, a native army could be decapitated at its head by one volley."
 
Instead of being taught that 16^th-century Spain had a monarchy, students at Founders Classical Academy are incorrectly learning that it had a form of republican government that was superior to anything that "native peoples" had created.
  On the feminist movement, Founders Classical Academy students are taught that feminism "created an entirely new class of females who lacked male financial support and who had to turn to the state as a surrogate husband."
   A Patriot's History of the United States also addressesthe "pinnacle" of the "western way of war" as demonstrated by the Iraq War and questions the legitimacy of Secretary of State John Kerry's "suspect at best" Purple Hearts and Bronze Star.
   

* * *

Some of Responsive Ed's lessons appear harmless at first, but their origin is troubling. Students also learn about "discernment," which is defined as "understanding the deeper reasons why things happen." In other sections, students learn other moral lessons such as "values" and "deference."
   These lessons were lifted directly from a company called Character First Education, which was founded by an Oklahoma businessman named Tom Hill. He is a follower of Bill Gothard, a minister who runs the Institute in Basic Life Principles, a Christian organization that teaches its members to incorporate biblical principles into daily life. IBLP is considered a cult by some of its former followers. Gothard developed character qualities associated with a list of "49 General Commands of Christ" that Hill adopted for his character curriculum. Hill then removed Gothard's references to God and Bible verses and started marketing the curriculum to public schools and other public institutions.
   The values taught by Responsive Ed can often be found word for word on Gothard's website. The Responsive Ed unit on genetics includes "Thoroughness: Knowing what factors will diminish the effectiveness of my work or words if neglected." The only difference is that Gothard's website also adds "Proverbs 18:15" after the quote.
   Many of Gothard's teachings revolve around obedience to men, especially that of the wife and the children. Gothard has upset even other conservative Christians. In an interview for an article published by Religion Dispatches, Don Veinot, a conservative Christian and founder of the Midwest Christian Outreach, accused Gothard of "creating a culture of fear." Gothard has been accused of emotional and sexual abuse by some of his former followers, "happening as far back as the mid- to late-1970's and as recently as this year."
   Responsive Ed and Character First may have removed the references to God and Bible verses from the curriculum that is being used in public schools, but it is clear that the line between church and state is still being blurred. And nothing that Gothard has created should be allowed near children.
   Responsive Ed has plenty of connections to other fundamentalist right-wing organizations as well. Its website's "Helpful Information" section directs parents to Focus on the Family under the heading of "Family Support." Under "Values" it steers students to the Traditional Values Coalition, whose website includes a header that says, "Say NO to Obama. Stop Sharia in America."
   

* * *

In late October, I visited iSchool High, a Responsive Ed public charter in Houston, and asked the campus director, Michael Laird, about reports that the school was teaching creationism.
   A few days before my visit, writing for Salon, Jonny Scaramanga, an activist who reports on Christian education, had exposed a section of iSchool's curriculum that blamed Hitler's atrocities on the theory of evolution. Scaramanga had been sent the curriculum by Joshua Bass, the parent of a former iSchool student. Bass rightly viewed this curriculum as an attempt to sneak religion into the classroom and teach creationism.
   "Oh, you're media," Laird said, sounding strained as he scribbled a phone number on a pink sticky note for me. "You'll have to talk to the main office."
      I was quickly shuffled out, but while I was not allowed to see any curriculum or talk to any teachers, I did get to look into a classroom from the outside and verified that the setup looked exactly like a picture of an Accelerated Christian Education classroom I had seen on Scaramanga's website.
 
  ACE is a popular Christian home-school curriculum that's also used in many private schools and publicly funded voucher schools. It's the most infamous Christian home-school curriculum and for years taught that the Loch Ness monster was real in its attempts to disprove evolution.
   Bass discovered that Responsive Ed was founded by Donald Howard, who had also founded ACE. But it wasn't immediately clear exactly how interconnected these two organizations are.
   ACE and Responsive Ed are both headquartered in Lewisville, just 4 miles apart, and staff members appear to rotate between the two organizations.
   When I asked Responsive Ed's Gonzalez about her charter network's history with Howard and ACE, she said that none of the ACE founders, including Howard, had been associated with Responsive Ed for the past seven or eight years. But I found that five members of Responsive Ed's current board and leadership group used to work for ACE (also known as School of Tomorrow). Responsive Ed's current CEO, Charles Cook, spent several years in charge of marketing at ACE before he joined Responsive Ed, and he designed the original curriculum that Responsive Ed used.
   Raymond Moore, one of Responsive Ed's earliest principals (at that time Responsive Ed was known as Eagle Charter Schools), explained that while Responsive Ed "took the Christian vernacular out" of ACE curriculum, they still "put in character traits that reflect our values." He also noted that "almost everyone in the management has been in the ministry."
   Howard expressed this same sentiment about his charter schools in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 1998, saying, "Take the Ten Commandments—you can rework those as 'success principles' by rewording them. We will call it truth, we will call it principles, we will call it values. We will not call it religion." (Hat tip to the Texas Freedom Network and Scaramanga for locating this quote.)
 
  One figure stands out when it comes to revealing the political and religious agenda behind the Responsive Ed charter schools. ACE's former vice president, Ronald Johnson, founded a curriculum company, Paradigm Accelerated Curriculum, which also ran four public charter schools in Texas. Paradigm's curriculum teaches abstinence in English class. ChristianBook.com describes the science curriculum as teaching "evolution from a young-earth creationist perspective." Paradigm's website also says that the curriculum is "carefully designed to equip high school students to defend their faith" and is being used in public schools in 11 states.
   Paradigm and Johnson are closely connected to Responsive Ed. In 2010, Responsive Ed absorbed Paradigm, taking over its schools and replacing its board. Paradigm noted in a press release that this allowed Responsive Ed to "incorporate the PACS system and curriculum across Texas and in other states." The release described this as "a 'win-win' situation for both organizations" because Responsive Ed schools already use a "learning system based on a manual designed and written by Dr. Johnson while he was Vice President of [Accelerated Christian Education]." Before 2010, Responsive Ed and Paradigm operated on the same model, and now Paradigm and Responsive Ed are the same organization.
   The release also added that Johnson would continue his role in marketing Paradigm curriculum (now for Responsive Ed) and would train Responsive Ed's teachers and help design the curriculum used in their schools.
   While Responsive Ed attempts to preserve a facade of secularism, on the Paradigm website, Johnson is far more explicit about his goal of subverting charter programs.
   Johnson believes the public education system strips students "of access to the foundational Judeo-Christian moral and economic virtues." Other problems with public education include "sex education classes and distribution of free condoms" and "tolerance of homosexual life-styles and Islam."
 
  He thinks that school choice is the way to bring "Judeo-Christian values" back into classrooms and cites other right-wing activists including Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, David Barton's WallBuilders, Jerry Falwell, and Focus on the Family as champions of using education reform to do this.
   There's just one problem. Johnson recognizes that "a major weakness exists in the school choice movement." Charter schools are still public! These former ACE executives, according to Johnson, are pretending to observe the "so-called 'separation of church and state' doctrine" in order to use charter schools like Responsive Ed as a Trojan horse to sneak religion back into public schools.
   Will anyone sue to stop them?
   I asked Dan Quinn at the Texas Freedom Network about potential remedies to what Responsive Ed is teaching. He said, "These materials lie to students about science, and using them puts the school—and the taxpayers who fund it—at risk of a lawsuit it would almost certainly lose."
   There are more than 17,000 students in Responsive Ed schools, and any one of them, or their parents, could file suit because their constitutional rights have been violated.
   Rather than it taking a lawsuit, I hope that legislators will take the appropriate actions to regulate these schools and improve Texas charter policy.
   Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education told me, "Some people don't realize that the First Amendment applies to charter schools just as much as to any other public school. Teaching creationism or other sectarian religious claims as if they were science is wrong anywhere, but it's especially bad to use tax dollars to force one person's religion onto school kids."
 
  I asked Quinn about charter rules in Texas, and he said, "Weak state oversight has long been one of the biggest problems with the charter school system in Texas, and the state simply can't look the other way when a charter tries to skirt the law and undermine the education of their own students."
   I don't think other charter schools can look away either; Responsive Ed is an internal threat to the charter movement. Rather than educating students, it's interested in indoctrinating them with one sect of religion. If weak oversight allows Responsive Ed to survive, it makes the entire charter system look bad.
   The Stanford Center for Research on Education Outcomes has published the leading report on the academic effect of major charter operators across the country. The report found that while students who attended Knowledge Is Power Program schools experienced positive academic gains, "Responsive Ed had a significant negative impact on student reading gains and a non-significant effect in math." (Responsive Ed responded by criticizing the CREDO report, and CREDO issued a response to Responsive Ed's response.)
   Mike Feinberg, a co-founder of the KIPP charter schools, told me that "charter school authorizers should hold Texas charter schools to the highest standards in the realms of academics, financial solvency, and student safety."
   A conservative education reform think tank, the Fordham Institute, suggested that because of low-performing networks like Responsive Ed cited in CREDO's report, charter authorizers needed to make changes. Fordham called on authorizers to "strengthen ... practices" when it came to their responsibility to "renew or not renew the charter school's contract based on school performance, especially academic performance."
 
  Texas has capped the number of charters in the state at 300, and when bad charters that teach creationism are allowed to remain in the system, it prevents other charter operators from opening better schools. It's fundamentally anti-charter to allow Responsive Ed schools to remain in Texas' program. Responsive Education Solutions must have their charter revoked.
   It is clearly past time for Texas to tighten the rules surrounding charters and enforce accountability to prevent any other religious programs from subverting the public education system.
   This is a moment of truth for the charter movement and for Texas politicians. Will they support removing from charter programs these schools that break the law?

[Ugly MF]

Sve ovo u dobroj nameri i sa osmehom na licu, naravno.

Allahu je milo i drago imati Mehu za svoga!!!

[scallop]

Meho, mnogo su naporni za čitanje dugački linkovi. Ubih se dok nisam shvatio da su to sve poznate stvari. Volim ja kreacionizam, pogledam ili pročitam sve čega se domognem. Zgodno je kad te nešto protrese, to i ker radi kad izađe iz vode. Ali, metod kreacionizma nije dobar. Baviti se negiranjem umesto dokazivanjem je unapred izgubljena bitka. Tim pre što ima i fejk pokušaja koji su rđa na njihovoj platformi. Ipak, najveća šteta se nanosi deci koja slušaju gubitničku teoriju. Najviše mi se dopala rečenica da iz loših teorija proističu još lošiji zakoni. To bi na umu mogli da imaju sve strane, pa i na ovom našem ZS kad zapnu iz loših premisa.

[Meho Krljic]

Dugački, dugački, jeste, skoro kao da je autor teksta želeo da sistematski objasni zašto je mešanje verskih teza sa naučnim teorijama u principu bezvezna ideja. Još samo da je neko hteo da se potrudi pa da u tekstu obeleži delove relevantne za rasprave na ovom forumu...

[scallop]

Mislim da sam izvukao dve ključne rečenice. Zgodno je imati različite stavove, ali je jako nezgodno ako se tako nanosi šteta.