There are so many other things out there that are more important than this but people cant seem to carry on with they're own lives, they have to delve into subject that will never, or at least not in a LONG time, be resolved; I'm saying other things are important than this because people sometimes take these things too seriously, religon and moral are a big thing dont get me wrong, but there are way to treat this, there are also other things one has to do, for example, go on with their lives. But like a I said, there are people who build their world and lives based far too much on these things, things they cannot change, maybe because the fact that religion is sometimes so "unchangable" that i's a sort of comfort these people loo for; a change scares some, for people like me, it's a welcome comfort.

   The reason for me writting abou this is that there has been a question I've been reading on my way to school, I say this because it's posted on a bulletin board on my way to my office, it asks "Should morals and religion be taught in the classroom?" and whats my answer you might ask, Morals = YES, Religion =Not as much. Theres a problem is this (and all countries) when people cannot distinguish the difference between morals and religion, one and the other might meld well together but aren't necessarily the same thing. It's strange how you can teach Morals without religion but you cant teach religion without morals.

   Obviously what pops into everyones head here is that if your going to teach morals in the classroom you're gonna have to throw in a few paragraphs from the Bible, why would you do that??? It's perfectly fine to to use Christ as an EXAMPLE, hell, you can use any religious figure for all I care as long you don't use him only, of course, I am one that doesn't mind hearing a bout any specific religion in class, after all I'm note religious at all and do not feel comfortable talking about it or experience people practicing what they believe in, I do feel it's incorrect to make a habit of referencing religious characters in any kind of moral study. Are these religious figures THE ONLY moral moral human beings that have existed (or have been created if you want)? Is there anyone out there that is an atheist but live morally? Of course there is, there has to be, demographically it's IMPOSSIBLE that this person does not exist.

   What I also think is that people tend to exaggerate too much on these kinds of subject, people nowadays if they see a person talking about their religion they feel like they[re being pressured to join, you cant give an opinion because it might be more based on religion than fact, if you believe in God it doesn't mean that you've been living a lie, at one point in time EVERYONE in the world believed in some sort of deity, so it's far from wrong. Now, that doesn't mean that being an atheist is completely wrong, I do have to admit it's a very comfortable way to go through every day but it's not really wrong, I think it's very practical, you go through your life living each day not worrying about whether that gum you stuck under the table or that lusty look you gave to that girl on the bus stop is going to be your ticket to hell.

   Religion should be used only as an example not as a strict "yes/no", "right/left", "you are wrong and I am right" subject, the problem is there are too many religions in this world that, regardless of their differences, basically they are the same, certain morals might be considered universal like helping your fellow man, the less fortunate, and these things aren't necessarily christain, they existed before anyone decided to write a book as influential as the Bible, there was just this guy who was smart enough to coin them as commandments. I say keep morals in class and bring in religion once in a while, but in way the shows that most religions have these same morals, might make a more interesting class that way.