Not_Now.Soon

Where you claim:

"As a Christian I would say that between following God or following man's rules, that following God trumps following man. "

Its only Men who have explained so-called "God's" rules.

It was self appointed men who claimed to have "heard" God's voice.

And most of the New Testament was edited by a Roman Commitee. The Roman leadership class that years before had slaughtered Chistians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

Not_Now.Soon

I, as a self-appointed saint heard you uttereth my typos. So behold below I fixteth:

Where Not_Now.Soon claims:

"As a Christian I would say that between following God or following man's rules, that following God trumps following man. "

Its only Men who have explained so-called "God's" rules.

It was self-appointed holy men who claimed to have "heard" God's voice.

And most of the New Testament was edited by a Roman Committee, line by line, based on scraps of multilingual scholarship.

This Committee of Roman men also selectively minimised the few mentions of woman, consigning woman as whores or saints - no normal woman in-between.

The Roman editorial leadership class that years before had slaughtered Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

One could never expect a parliament or some other secular body to determine what is or isn't the word of God.

To guarantee freedom of religion, the only safe way is therefore to allow ALL teachings, then leave it for the parents to determine who will teach their children.

Mainstream churches have been spoilt for too long to think that the moment they mention "word of God", the regime will jump to attention. Well, this will no longer happen, so they better get used to this new reality which smaller religious streams faced all along and support unconditional freedom for all.

To Plantagenet.

Are you offended that I am Christian? Or that I identify my understanding or my points come from a Christian foundation. I would not be insulted if someone says "as a doctor," "as a woman/ as a man," "as a student," or as anything else. It is a phrase to explain where a person's points are coming from. They aren't saying that they are saintly or anything like that, nor am I saying that. Since you decided not to reply to the actual points I had made, I have to assume that the conversation is of no value to you, but instead your insulted that Christians actually hold the bible to be from God in one way or another. I will not apologize for being Christian, and if you're insulted, that's on you not on me.

To Toni.

That's not a bad question. As far as racism goes I can't think of any reason to justify it. From a religious perspective I don't think race is a factor. It's the teachings that matter not a person's heritage. Regarding sexism the only arguments that can be applied to sexism could be if a religion says that women should not teach, that women are not allowed in a certain religious position (like a priest or something similar), or in a non-teaching environment being sexist to a job based on a strength level between men and women (an argument for women to not be active police officers, firemen, or soldiers). Only one of those reasons applies to schools, and even that reason is not an excuse for so many examples of sexism from wage difference to condescending attitudes towards women or men.

To Yuyutsu.

You said:
[To guarantee freedom of religion, the only safe way is therefore to allow ALL teachings, then leave it for the parents to determine who will teach their children.]

I agree. The only things to restrict this is whether there is a dangerous, criminal, or terrorist element within the schools or the teachers lessons; and the other is if the school teaches a minimum subjects to ensure the students leave school with the tools to make it in the world. Math, reading, and writing would be that minimum in my opinion. Anything beyond that would be up to the government such as history or science classes. But for religious freedom to exist then any religious teaching should be allowed to be taught from a religious teacher. That said, if a teacher wants to say they teach correctly, then a peer from that religion should be able to say they are or are not teaching correctly.

No Worries Not_Now.Soon

As a card carrying Christian, who wears it on his sleeve.

You must be holier than we unbelievers.