THAT RELIGIOUS LESSON SHOULD NOT BE THOUGH IN SCHOOL

Religion, politics, philosophy, and relationships between people have always been among the most
unambiguous and controversial topics. Modern society continues this trend arguing a problem from
different perspectives. According to the majority of civilized states, everyone has the right to belong to
the religious community that they consider most acceptable for themselves, and the educational system
should be separated from religious institutions. The freedom of religion and belief is stated in the 18th
article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Top 5 Pros of Teaching Religion in Public Schools

Children learning religious practices and beliefs and aware of their deferences are more tolerant
towards people around;

Schoolchildren learning religion apply more critical thinking in matters of morality. They learn to
comprehend their actions not only from the perspective of their own advantages but also from the point
of view of moral norms.

Modern society has an urgent need to cultivate moral values, tolerance, mutual understanding, and
respect for each other in the younger generation.

The classes in Religion cover most topics that are ignored in many families.

Studying more subjects broadens the schoolchildren’s outlook.

Top 5 Cons of Teaching Religion in Public Schools

Teaching religion at school is an attempt to impose a religious outlook on the child, but not on critical
scientific thinking.

In a civilized state, there is no imposition of dogmas of any religion. Most modern people have a habit of
believing inwardly, individually.
Teachers may not be able to teach the basics of a particular religion; they may have other faiths. In this
case, it is necessary to preserve the secular nature of the subject and to separate their own faith from
theoretical information.

Textbooks can be compiled in the preaching and anti-scientific style and absolutely do not meet the
goals.

Fierce disputes arising during the classes in Religion can provoke hatred and animosity among students
that can be manifested in aggression.

Pro : Learning religion is a way to know the world. In Finland, children from primary school study religion
practiced in their family or ethics, and this is one of the most popular subjects.

Since not many parents talk to children about God and religion, the school can fill this gap. Thus,
schooling will become more complex. This is an opportunity to give not only academic knowledge but
also to grow a human from a person.

In conclusion, it should be said that it is necessary to prepare for the teaching of religion in schools – to
teach teachers to translate the true values and compile textbooks correctly. With this approach, religion
has the opportunity to become one of the most important and favorite subjects.

Cons : n most countries, religion is separated from education. This is a balanced decision, as a civilized
society implies the ability of each person to make an individual choice and believe in their values.
Religion should not be studied in school because it is contrary to the views of most modern societies and
can lead to enmity between young people and their groups.

We live in the 21st century, when the understanding of religiosity is critically rethought – now it is not
identified with spirituality. Religiousness is part of spirituality. And spirituality is very broad; it is often
called the whole life of a person. Therefore, each person should develop spirituality independently,
without forcible influence and even not under the influence of certain religious norms.

Religion is an inner sense of belonging to certain values. When we start broadcasting it outside, where
there are various other thoughts, then the person becomes vulnerable. And it does not develop self-
confidence but adds disagreement in adolescence.
If the school focuses on the ethics of a particular religion, then the topic of bullying in schools will
continue. Because now the child can be offended on a religious basis. And from a social point of view, it
is necessary to unite society, and not to develop enmity.

As a result, the school can give basic knowledge of the religions of the world, point out their differences,
make a comparison of the traditions of these peoples. This should be an objective presentation of the
picture, without priorities and deviations. Then the children of all religious denominations will feel at
ease in the classroom. As for religious ethics, it is better to develop an understanding of basic human
values that are universal.

THAT FEMINISM S CORRUPTING FAMILY

Feminism has liberated aspirational and affluent women, because it has ensured that women who are
capable of financial independence are more able to achieve it, within marriage or outside it – although
the continuing gender pay gap (much-monitored by Rake when she was at the Fawcett Society) is
testament that even this success has been highly circumscribed.

I don’t imagine that 1970s feminists envisaged the rejection of educational opportunities, the refusal of
family planning options, and the graft of bringing up children alone and on the breadline, as brave-new-
world female choices for a post-liberation era, any more than they envisaged the advent of boob-jobs,
pole-dancing supermodels and store-card bankruptcy. Actually, it is a big fat irony that feminists are now
obliged to defend the right of lone mothers to stay at home with their young children, when the initial
idea was to liberate women from the obligation to, well, stay at home with their young children.

More than any other social movement in our time, feminism has changed the warp and weave of our
society. Feminist philosophy has made major inroads into politics, the work place, the military,
education, medical research and the building block of society—the family. Very few have questioned the
changes. Many who balk at some feminist notions heartily embrace others.

Wisdom tells us not all change is good. Not all change is growth. Some bitter fruits are now being
harvested from feminism in all areas it has infiltrated, in the personal lives of many women, and
especially in the family. Who will take the blame?

For decades, feminists have condemned men for everything. Supposedly, our patriarchal society is the
root cause of everything wrong. Of course, some men should be condemned for their mistreatment of
women. But what has feminism brought us? Is life really better for women? Are families better off? Is
society stronger?
Young women are made to feel that education should be directed toward career advancement only and
not toward teaching and training their own young children. Stable families with educated, stay-at-home
mothers would solve a large number of our current social troubles. We must learn to defend and praise
the women who stay at home. Motherhood is noble and fulfilling, real work!

Families in Crisis

The fight for women’s rights has actually turned into a fight against the family. Even the mothers of
modern feminism admit that radical feminists have worked hard to repudiate the family.

Feminist Stephanie Coontz, history professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa., wrote in
the Washington Post, “We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children
and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and
caregiving will take place in a traditional marriage” (May 1). You don’t have to read between the lines to
understand that such thinking is destroying the traditional family!

It is within the Anglo-American world that feminism has been embraced the most passionately. These
countries also have the highest divorce rates in the world, and are producing record numbers of
fatherless children—which in turn creates many other social problems. Robert Sheaffer writes, “One can
try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began
shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against women’s roles as
wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince” (Feminism, the Noble Lie). Let’s own up to it:
Feminism has caused some tragic results for the family.

If we are going to fix our social problems, we must recognize that feminism has led our Western families
into serious crises. Here is how it happened. Although many young women answered the call to pursue
a career, they could not deny their natural desire for a husband and children. Many then opted to have a
husband, children and a career. Realizing that certain feminine desires could not be denied, a new
movement slogan was quickly pushed into public view—“having it all.” This slogan lives on. But it
ignores a hard reality for many working mothers: Having it all also means handling it all. Working career
mothers were forced into a high-stress rat race. Having it all was supposed to be fulfilling, but it was not.
Now, almost four decades later, women find they are not any closer to finding true, satisfying
fulfillment. For some, “having it all” has meant losing it all.

The truth is, working mothers suffer. The children of working mothers always suffer. And should we
forget—the husband suffers too.

Severe fatigue plagues many working mothers. Balancing career, marriage and child care is an
impossible task. Few can actually do it all. To do it all, corners have to be cut. Unfortunately, because of
feminist peer pressure, marriage and family are sacrificed before career. Many two-career marriages
have crumbled. Children have been left at home alone. Can we begin to see the harm that working
motherhood has done to families?

You are mistaken sweetheart , that’s the power of the feminist brainwashing of the public. Nearly 100
men die every week from suicide in UK alone , direct result of family court and feminism corrupting the
law to avoid detection or punishment . Women can act and abuse lawfully

Their continual effort to wage war against against the family unit in order to gain “power” for women is
a failure at understanding that human needs are more important than political ones. It’s an excellent
example of the corrupting effect of modern feminism.

The feminist movement is one of the most evil movements going on today They are trying to
corrupt/corrupting how God intended a family to be

The family is the only appropriate place for the reproduction of gender norms. Academics writing and
thinking about gender are corrupting the minds of the youths. This is feminism, the best feminism, the
most feministest feminism. I am very smart

Free woman does not need Feminism nonsense to protect herself; just like a free homosexual does not
need political LGBT movements which are corrupting the family which is the stem cell and building block
of a nation.

Woman and man are just the equal integrators of each other.

10 reasons why you should NOT be a modern feminist.

Feminism was started with a good motto.

It had the sense to help women who are weak, vulnerable to attack and suffer from domestic violence.

But, it has reached an end where it is continuously transforming women into demons.

Here are 10 reasons WHY you should not be a feminist.

1- They are broke.

Almost all feminist women are emotionally broke.

They rise from a lack of masculinity and instead of learning about it and improving their life, they find an
escape window that is feminism.
 2- They live on false beliefs

Equality and independence are illusions that they create and spend their whole life on proving and
fighting for them.

Men and women are different by nature – You can’t equate them.

Women depend on men by nature and there is no shame in it.

3- They don’t help women

Women who manipulate you to be feminist are dead inside and wants the same for you and one day
you will do the same to other women.

It’s a subconscious act of normalizing a sin so to have a justification statement-

All women do it and so, it’s not wrong.

4- They are illogical and dumb

“We will wear what we want, it’s the men’s mistake who sexualize women in short dresses”

Where is the logic?

How can you expect/trust any random man walking on the street to not sexualize you while you are
wearing a revealing dress?

5-Unaware of consequences of their actions

“Not marry till 30, don’t have children, drink, smoke and have fun”

If you can’t imagine the consequences of these acts – you should leave reading it right now.

It’s not living life on your terms, it’s living life on the worst terms.

5- They spread hatred against feminine and masculine essence

“Have you ever seen any feminist talking about grace, beauty, love, need of masculinity and femininity
in the society”

No.

It’s beyond their thought process.

6- They promote all the degenerative things

When a person is hurt and doesn’t know what to do, he/she just do destruction.

This happens with feminists.

In the name of empowerment, they are just scamming you and themselves.

7- They direct women to objectify themselves

Yes, you read it right.

They objectify themselves so men won’t get the opportunity to do it.

-feminist logic.

Low self-worth, low standards and NO values.

8- Feminists are not loyal to anyone – NOT with you also.

In general, women are less loyal to other women. And feminists are at the top.

They are just in that pool to release their emotional tension and once ‘by chance’ they get any
Masculine man, they will back off.

9- They don’t teach women – they manipulate women.

The one who teaches you makes you understand the scenario and leave the decision to you.

The one who manipulates you narrates the scenario in his/her way and impose a decision on you.

Learn this difference.

Running away from the truth only gonna make your life worse.

Accept it.

THAT MEDIA SHOULD NOT REPORT OR COMMENT UPON TERORIST ACT

Means by which the Internet is utilized for terrorist purposes

2. For the purposes of the present publication, a functional approach has been adopted

Regarding the classification of the means by which the Internet is often utilized to promote and support
acts of terrorism. This approach has resulted in the identification of

Six sometimes overlapping categories: propaganda (including recruitment, radicalization

And incitement to terrorism); financing; training; planning (including through secret

Communication and open-source information); execution; and cyberattacks. Each of

These categories is addressed in greater detail below.

1. Propaganda

2. One of the primary uses of the Internet by terrorists is for the dissemination of

Propaganda. Propaganda generally takes the form of multimedia communications providing ideological
or practical instruction, explanations, justifications or promotion of

Terrorist activities. These may include virtual messages, presentations, magazines, treatises, audio and
video files and video games developed by terrorist organizations or

Sympathizers. Nevertheless, what constitutes terrorist propaganda, as opposed to legitimate advocacy

of a viewpoint, is often a subjective assessment. Further, the dissemination of propaganda is generally
not, in and of itself, a prohibited activity. One of the basic tenets of international law is the protection of
fundamental human rights, which
Include the right to freedom of expression (see discussion in section I.D below). This

Guarantees an individual the right to share an opinion or distribute content which may

Be considered objectionable by others, subject to certain limited exceptions. One commonly accepted
exclusion with respect to that right is the prohibition against the distribution of certain categories of
sexually explicit content, the prohibition of which is

Deemed to be in the public interest in order to protect certain vulnerable groups. Other

Exclusions, all of which must be provided for by law and shown to be necessary, may

Include communications that are clearly detrimental to the protection of national security

And communications that are both intended and likely to incite acts of violence against

Individuals or specific groups of individuals.3

3. The promotion of violence is a common theme in terrorism-related propaganda.

The broad reach of content distributed via the Internet exponentially increases the

Audience that may be affected. Further, the ability to directly distribute content via the

Internet diminishes the reliance on traditional channels of communication, such as news

Services, which may take steps to independently evaluate the credibility of the information provided or
to edit or omit aspects deemed to be unduly provocative. Internet

Propaganda may also include content such as video footage of violent acts of terrorism
Or video games developed by terrorist organizations that simulate acts of terrorism and

Encourage the user to engage in role-play, by acting the part of a virtual terrorist.

4. The promotion of extremist rhetoric encouraging violent acts is also a common

Trend across the growing range of Internet-based platforms that host user-generated

Content. Content that might formerly have been distributed to a relatively limited audience, in person or
via physical media such as compact discs (CDs) and digital video

Discs (DVDs), has increasingly migrated to the Internet. Such content may be distributed using a broad
range of tools, such as dedicated websites, targeted virtual chat

Rooms and forums, online magazines, social networking platforms such as Twitter and

Facebook, and popular video and file-sharing websites, such as YouTube and Rapidshare,

Respectively. The use of indexing services such as Internet search engines also makes it

Easier to identify and retrieve terrorism-related content.

5. The fundamental threat posed by terrorist propaganda relates to the manner in

Which it is used and the intent with which it is disseminated. Terrorist propaganda distributed via the
Internet covers a range of objectives and audiences. It may be tailored,

Inter alia, to potential or actual supporters or opponents of an organization or shared

Extremist belief, to direct or indirect victims of acts of terrorism or to the international

Community or a subset thereof. Propaganda aimed at potential or actual supporters may

Be focused on recruitment, radicalization and incitement to terrorism, through messages

Conveying pride, accomplishment and dedication to an extremist goal. It may also be

Used to demonstrate the effective execution of terrorist attacks to those who have provided financial
support. Other objectives of terrorist propaganda may include the use of

Psychological manipulation to undermine an individual’s belief in certain collective social values, or to

propagate a sense of heightened anxiety, fear or panic in a population or

Subset of the population. This may be achieved through the dissemination of disinformation,

Rumours, threats of violence or images relating to provocative acts of violence. The

Intended audience may include direct viewers of content, as well as those affected by

Potential publicity generated by such material. With respect to the wider international

Community, the goal is often to convey a desire to achieve noble political ends.4

(a) Recruitment

6. The Internet may be used not only as a means to publish extremist rhetoric and

Videos, but also a way to develop relationships with, and solicit support from, those
Most responsive to targeted propaganda. Terrorist organizations increasingly use propaganda
distributed via platforms such as password-protected websites and restrictedaccess Internet chat groups
as a means of clandestine recruitment.5

The reach of the

Internet provides terrorist organizations and sympathizers with a global pool of potential

Recruits. Restricted access cyberforums offer a venue for recruits to learn about, and

Provide support to, terrorist organizations and to engage in direct actions in the furtherance of terrorist
objectives.6

The use of technological barriers to entry to recruitment

Platforms also increases the complexity of tracking terrorism-related activity by intelligence and law
enforcement personnel.

7. Terrorist propaganda is often tailored to appeal to vulnerable and marginalized

Groups in society. The process of recruitment and radicalization commonly capitalizes

On an individual’s sentiments of injustice, exclusion or humiliation.7

Propaganda may

Be adapted to account for demographic factors, such as age or gender, as well as social

Or economic circumstances.

8. The Internet may be a particularly effective medium for the recruitment of minors,

Who comprise a high proportion of users. Propaganda disseminated via the Internet

With the aim of recruiting minors may take the form of cartoons, popular music videos

Or computer games. Tactics employed by websites maintained by terrorist organizations

Or their affiliates to target minors have included mixing cartoons and children’s stories

With messages promoting and glorifying acts of terrorism, such as suicide attacks. Similarly, some
terrorist organizations have designed online video games intended to be

Used as recruitment and training tools. Such games may promote the use of violence

Against a State or prominent political figure, rewarding virtual successes, and may be

Offered in multiple languages to appeal to a broad audience.

Journalists and other media actors have a responsibility to make available accurate and comprehensive
information on terrorist acts and potential threats and to avoid sensationalist media reports which lead
to the spread of public terror, fear and feelings of chaos. Media coverage can be crucial in stimulating
informed debate in situations of crisis. Media professionals can also make a positive contribution to the
prevention of terrorism by notably displaying how member states and international organisations
respond to these threats.

However, equally importantly in such context, the rights of journalists and other media professionals
must be protected, including their right to access information in public interest and the right not to
disclose their sources. Also, legislation, including anti-terrorist laws, and how it is applied in practice can
give rise to a chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate.

THAT RELIGIOUS COLUMN SHOULD BE OMITTED FROM NATIONAL ID CARD

I strongly agree. It will remove bias and discrimination based on religion. Non Moslems are heavily
discriminated in Indonesia in many aspects, whether they want to admit it or not. Besides, what is the
business of the government or other people to know my religion (aside of companies having data for
marketing strategies).

I feel the religion section is completely unnecessary. It doesn’t have any benefits other than to show
one’s religion, which should be a private matter between the person and their god(s).

Furthermore, there are only 5 (6?) official religions currently officially recognized by the Indonesian
government, and who are they to say that religion X (which has not been recognized by the government)
is not a real religion, or not really a religion, or not as much a religion as the other recognized?

And what about people who just do not believe in god/religion i.e., people who are agnostic/atheist?
For a country that has a motto “unity in diversity” it seems a bit hypocritical to include something so
segregating in its ID card.
I agree. The column is terribly unnecessary and it breeds opportunities for discrimination. For example,
I’m a Catholic, but that doesn’t (shouldn’t) matter in any kind of situation, so why do people need to
know? What’s the purpose of letting people know other’s religion?

Of course, before removing this column, there need to be careful socialization to people so that they
don’t get the wrong idea, for example: Indonesia isn’t religious anymore.

My thoughts? As an Indonesian, I’m absolutely agree about the idea of removing the “Religion” section
from the KTP. I think it is unnessesary to show to other people what your religion is. By removing the
religion section from the KTP it will also remove any discrimination or bias against religious minorities.
The situation is better for religious minorities whose religion is recognized as one of the official religions
such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, but the situation is even worse for those
whose religion is not recognized by the State, such as: Tradisional Religions (Sunda Wiwitan, Kejawen,
Parmalim, Marapu, etc), Judaism, etc. So in my opinion, removing the “religion” section in KTP is a good
idea.

Republika.co.id

English National-politics

VP says column of religion will not be omitted

Jumat , 07 Nov 2014, 20:09 WIB

Jusuf Kalla

ROL/Fian Firatmaja

Jusuf Kalla

Red: Julkifli Marbun

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA – Vice-President Jusuf Kalla has confirmed that the religion column on
people’s Identity Cards will not be omitted just because some follow religions not recognized by the
government.

“It will not be omitted. Those who do not follow any recognized religion may just leave the column
empty,” he told newsmen at his office.
He was speaking in response to a proposal to allow citizens, who follow religions outside the ones
recognized by the government or other faiths, to just leave the column empty. The matter has now
become a polemic.

Six religions are recognized by the government. They are Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism,
Hinduism and Konghucu (Confucianism).

Jusuf Kalla said Indonesian citizens who do not follow any of the religions may leave the religion column
on their Ids empty.

“For example, if the person is not a Muslim, a Catholic, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Konghucu or
say he is a Shiite or a traditional believer, he may just leave the column empty,” he explained.

The vice-president noted that religion was a personal issue and not a state affair.

“Someone who wants to leave the religion column empty must not be forced to do otherwise,” he
stressed.

He emphasized that those who chose not to fill the religion column would not be treated any different
than those who filled the column.

He assured there would not be any discrimination against them.

THAT MALE LEADER IS SUPERIOR THAN FEMALE LEADER

Americans believe women have the right stuff to be political leaders. When it comes to honesty,
intelligence and a handful of other character traits they value highly in leaders, the public rates women
superior to men, according to a new nationwide Pew Research Center Social and Demographic Trends
survey.

In the survey, the public cites gender discrimination, resistance to change, and a self-serving “old boys
club” as reasons for the relative scarcity of women at the top. In somewhat smaller numbers,
respondents also say that women’s family responsibilities and their shortage of experience hold them
back from the upper ranks of politics and business.
What the public does not say is that women inherently lack what it takes to be leaders. To the contrary,
on seven of eight leadership traits measured in this survey, the public rates women either better than or
equal to men.

For example, half of all adults say women are more honest than men, while just one-in-five say men are
more honest (the rest say they don’t know or volunteer the opinion that there’s no difference between
the sexes on this trait). And honesty, according to respondents, is the most important to leadership of
any of the traits measured in the survey.

The next most important leadership trait, in the public’s view, is intelligence. Here again, women
outperform men: 38% of respondents say women are smarter than men, while just 14% say men are
smarter, and the remainder say there’s no difference between the sexes.

To be sure, the fact that such a large majority of respondents (69%) say that women and men make
equally good political leaders is itself a measure of the profound changes in women’s role in society that
have taken place over the past several decades.

An obvious question therefore arises: if women have more potential for leadership, then why are they
still the minority group among leaders? Well, the answer is rather obvious: because we don’t really
select leaders on the basis of their actual potential, talent, or competence. If we did, then we wouldn’t
just have more women leaders, but more female than male leaders. And if we did, then the average
performance of leaders would not be as poor as it is today. The painful truth is that feminism is a data-
driven bias, whereas sexism is self-destructive. This is why, according to McKinsey, the world’s GDP is
$12 trillion lower today than it would be if we advanced towards gender equality. According to the
World Bank, gender inequality is costing us $23,620 per person in lost earnings, and $160 trillion in
human capital loss (twice the global GDP). So, instead of optimizing our world for progress, wealth, and
fairness, we choose to perpetuate a status quo that benefits those who are in charge.

No, they aren’t any different than men. It’s all about their character and ideas, not their sex.

This is a sort of opinion created by the male dominant society. Because of denied rights, opportunities
and exploitation, women were unable to establish their leadership skills.

Running homes silently in the background are the women and this is not recognized as leadership.
Because everything was organized, going smooth and managed well at the homefront, the males were
able to concentrate on other things and become leaders in the external world.

It can also be said that some males became cruel and bad leaders because their homes were not
properly managed.
There were very able women leaders globally like Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Sirimavo Bandaranaike in
the past.

Presently due to the awareness and equal opportunity there are several women leaders coming up and
doing better than males.

Women are more effective leaders than men.

1. Women are better listeners than men. And, Listening is one of the nost important
element of effective communication. It is a skill most critical for managing employees,
customers, stakeholders and competitors.

2. Women are having stronger business ethics. A strong moral codes help leaders to deal
with various types of challenges.

3. Women are far more patient with employees and customers than men. They are willing
to wait longer for a desired result. They are less likely to make a quick decision or take
action too soon.

4. Women are better consensus builders. They don’t need like men to direct everyone in
what to do. They know how to build strong cooperative relationships which is the base
of successful companies.

Thank you!