how?

It's not causing harm to anyone or anything

"it is part of forming society, we agree on morals"

No, no we don't

"Harm is a terrible metric much like suffering for morality"

howso?

If we only co sider harm i can mąkę the case for public nudity. I can also live on a trash bin and walk around smelling like shit. The point being that there is more to proper morał behavour than harm. For example behaviours that are unwanted but dont cause harm remain immoral. Seducing someone wife, her cheating on him. Its immoral and wrong yet no harm is actually being done.

The fact remains that a society forms around the Law which is i formed by morality, skimpy clothong for example is degenerate and immoral because it is a means by which to exert influence and power and spreas temptation and attempt to cause People to be have i morally. It is being slutty and that threatens proper gender relations, it takea away the idea that some tjings are scared and only to be given to some. Additionally you can be polygamous bwcause muh no harm. But at the same Time you b3come a walking std. The point being that your very state of existing is interconnected with the lives experience of other. They have a right to live in a society of standard that they choose. These standard are morally i formed and almost Universal. Any Man that has a Woman and is okay with her dressing sluttily is a beta cuck. Because i. Reality no Man is because of how xlear a provocarion that is. One could though arguebthat this kind of clothong promotes and causes distress.

"Seducing someone wife, her cheating on him. Its immoral and wrong yet no harm is actually being done."

I'd argue a violation of trust is a wrong

"proper gender relations" no such thing

"b3come a walking std." Sure, spreading STDs is immoral. If you're clean, no harm - also, lewd dress =/= boinking

"I can also live on a trash bin and walk around smelling like shit." still also different

Daily <@&516817984782729217> Question <:PraiseGod:484196233020440586>

Should religion be taught at schools if it is the nation's national religion? Should schools be able to choose if they teach it or not? Or should it not be taught at all?

Yes

no

No

no

And no, only teach Christianity

No

Don't teach religion, teach non denominational prayer

It should be taught

All schools should teach the dominant religion of their respective countries

like it's done in Egypt

There is no "yes" or "no" answer. There's three different questions. You have to choose which one you support and state why.

They shouldn’t need to but any teacher wanting to should be able to.

Christians have their own Christianity class

In my personal opinion, we need to put Jesus back in the classroom. Religion is apart of culture, and it's good to stick with culture. Tradition is the more important thing a nation has.

No religion should be forced in schools, rather a majority within the school should make religious teaching appropriate.

Have it taught in church

**Parents** need to teach their kids, not a teacher

No

the state should teach religion

Priests are technically teachers in a way

if the parents think wrong

they will pass it on

Schools should instil religious values, it should be up to the parents if their child goes full church mode

That would be rife with abuse, and is antithetical to the American ideal of separation of church, and state.

Well the parents can't think wrong if they were taught by the state

It should be taught, but those who aren’t the majority religion should be allowed to not attend. Like a church service/chapel time slot given but attendance not mandatory.

and not all kids have time for extracurricular studying for religion and such

@Da_Fish ok boomer