Hot Bed Question Bible Study In Public Schools

[mkemse]

Due to the Varierty of Religions In PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Should BIBLE STUDY be part of the Regular Daily Cirriculum in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, or should it be limited to Private Schools, the question is not in reference to a few minutes of silence to start the day, but rather a "Bible Study Class or Classes" in PUBLIC SCHOOLS

[annie]

I am a Christian.... that being said I think that Bible study in public school should be allowable... HOWEVER... it should be in jr/high school where there are class options to take it or not and I would honestly prefer it be "religious" and cover all aspects of religion (or lack there of), and a study of the Bible, Koran, etc. used. Kids need to be educated but they need to be able to make their own choice, especially on religion, as well.

[mkemse]

I am a Christian.... that being said I think that Bible study in public school should be allowable... HOWEVER... it should be in jr/high school where there are class options to take it or not and I would honestly prefer it be "religious" and cover all aspects of religion (or lack there of), and a study of the Bible, Koran, etc. used. Kids need to be educated but they need to be able to make their own choice, especially on religion, as well.

As I understood it, is was desired that ALL schools, jr high, high ect do this I firmly believe in the seperation ond church and state, and feel if parents want to have their kids/children studiy the bible in school that should be done only in Private or Procial Schools,NOT in a pubilic school, if you allow Bible Study IN Public Schools and madated or other wise where does one draw the line in seperating church and state, and as i undersatnad it, the issue when it was brough up was that students would be required, they would not have the option to "opt" out of the class, this is firmly believe is wrong, also what happens withthose who attend school, can't opt out and are not Christian??

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm in favour of Religious Studies at all levels in all schools - optional in examination years, of course.

I would expect Christian countries to emphasise Christianity, Moslem countries to emphasise Islam, and so on. Faith schools would of course concentrate on their own particular faith, but I would expect them to teach a basic understanding of the other main religions at least.

Follwers of minority religions in any country would have to take whatever Religious Studies courses were on offer, and make their own arrangements regarding their own particular faith. But they should not be forced into acts of worship by the main faith

TYWD

[mkemse]

I'm in favour of Religious Studies at all levels in all schools - optional in examination years, of course.

I would expect Christian countries to emphasise Christianity, Moslem countries to emphasise Islam, and so on. Faith schools would of course concentrate on their own particular faith, but I would expect them to teach a basic understanding of the other main religions at least.

Follwers of minority religions in any country would have to take whatever Religious Studies courses were on offer, and make their own arrangements regarding their own particular faith. But they should not be forced into acts of worship by the main faith

TYWD

Our Country The United States Is Based On Seperation Of Church and State,this is alwaso why the Unuted States had Private Procial Schools, just for this purpose, i do not believe any child in a publicly funded school should be required to study anything religious they do not want to, their parents pay the salaries of those in the schooo, in private procial school the churech does, let public schools refrane and let private or church run schools teach as they will I firmly diagree with you, if some is of a Non Chrisitan Faith, why should they be required to study someting they do not foloow or believe in, this is why we have seration of the 2 to keep Relgion and schools/politic seperate

[mkemse]

If a person does not believe in Christianity, why should there child in a publicy funded school be required to study the bible??

[Thorne]

Children are far too impressionable to be inundated with any kind of religious training during their formative years. Any religious training before the college level should be strictly prohibited.
Of course, that will never happen, will it? Parents who are members of a particular religion generally want to make certain that their offspring become enslaved to that religion as well, and begin training them at the earliest, through enforced baptisms, ritual circumcisions, weekly (at least) visits to the church/temple/mosque of their choice. By the time the kids have reached school age they are already well immersed in one superstition or another. Sending those kids to some sort of parochial school can really enhance the training, fully immersing the child into the religious flavor to which the parents ascribe.
Therefore, it is imperative that some sort of anti-religion courses should be introduced into public schooling at the earliest possible age, something to teach children of the foolishness of their parents' beliefs, to show them how and why religions are started and maintained, and to slowly, firmly and, if necessary, violently, turn them away from the teachings of their parents and to a new freedom.

Hang on a moment while I work on extricating my tongue from my cheek.

OK. I'm sure the above statement riled a few feathers. Deliberately so. If one happens to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or any one of the seemingly infinite numbers of religions in this world, one wants their children raised in that religion. Or in no religion, if that is your way. The more fanatically religious people want all children taught to honor whichever religion they, the parents, believe.
So let's keep the religion out of the public schools. In a culture as diverse as ours it would be impossible to please all of the members of all of the faiths, so it would be silly to try. The college level would be the place for a study of comparative religions, for those who want it and are, hopefully, intelligent enough to understand it.

[mkemse]

Children are far too impressionable to be inundated with any kind of religious training during their formative years. Any religious training before the college level should be strictly prohibited.
Of course, that will never happen, will it? Parents who are members of a particular religion generally want to make certain that their offspring become enslaved to that religion as well, and begin training them at the earliest, through enforced baptisms, ritual circumcisions, weekly (at least) visits to the church/temple/mosque of their choice. By the time the kids have reached school age they are already well immersed in one superstition or another. Sending those kids to some sort of parochial school can really enhance the training, fully immersing the child into the religious flavor to which the parents ascribe.
Therefore, it is imperative that some sort of anti-religion courses should be introduced into public schooling at the earliest possible age, something to teach children of the foolishness of their parents' beliefs, to show them how and why religions are started and maintained, and to slowly, firmly and, if necessary, violently, turn them away from the teachings of their parents and to a new freedom.

Hang on a moment while I work on extricating my tongue from my cheek.

OK. I'm sure the above statement riled a few feathers. Deliberately so. If one happens to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew, or any one of the seemingly infinite numbers of religions in this world, one wants their children raised in that religion. Or in no religion, if that is your way. The more fanatically religious people want all children taught to honor whichever religion they, the parents, believe.
So let's keep the religion out of the public schools. In a culture as diverse as ours it would be impossible to please all of the members of all of the faiths, so it would be silly to try. The college level would be the place for a study of comparative religions, for those who want it and are, hopefully, intelligent enough to understand it.


I do not know that children are to irresponsible or not, but I do not feel it right in public school to cram religion down anyone throat, let parents deciee the best way to teach it to them, if they feel school, grea enroll them in a private or porocial school, but do not use tax payers money to teacher religion is public schools, that is simply notthe correct way to deal with it

plus my children are more interested in recess, playing tag, ect then to worry about the apsct of theirt relgion, they have an entire lifetime to do that let kids be kids, they have very short time to dothat before they start to grow up

[annie]

As I understood it, is was desired that ALL schools, jr high, high ect do this I firmly believe in the seperation ond church and state, and feel if parents want to have their kids/children studiy the bible in school that should be done only in Private or Procial Schools,NOT in a pubilic school, if you allow Bible Study IN Public Schools and madated or other wise where does one draw the line in seperating church and state, and as i undersatnad it, the issue when it was brough up was that students would be required, they would not have the option to "opt" out of the class, this is firmly believe is wrong, also what happens withthose who attend school, can't opt out and are not Christian??

You did not initially state how you "understood" it. You asked a question...


Due to the Varierty of Religions In PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Should BIBLE STUDY be part of the Regular Daily Cirriculum in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, or should it be limited to Private Schools, the question is not in reference to a few minutes of silence to start the day, but rather a "Bible Study Class or Classes" in PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Which is what my response was based on. If you don't want other's opinions then don't phrase your statements as questions. As to your last question above...


also what happens withthose who attend school, can't opt out and are not Christian??

How DARE we open our children up to the ability to learn about different things. :rolleyes: And before you opt to spin that wrong, read my post again. I wasn't advocating for "Christians", I was advocating for All (or lack of, meaning choosing not to follow any certain sect of) religions to be taught... Let's enlighten our children and let them decide for themselves. I know a novel concept at best.

[Ozme52]

The problem with "bible" studies is that the various bibles teach their own faith. That conflicts with separation of church and state. And because the teacher will invariably "teach" his/her own religious beliefs with more fervor than others.

Now if you could show a well balanced, non-faith based, curriculum for the history of religions, the impact on the world (vetted by several orders including agnotics and atheists,) the basis and tenants of the respective faiths, how they overlap, how they conflict, perhaps the 'geography' of religions... that's a field of study that would be as important and as valuable as the other Social Studies we impose on our children.

That said, such classes shouldn't begin until middle school years. Elementary School aged children are still absorbing basic information. They haven't learned to "think" yet. And it would be confusing at that point to, in essence, interfere with whatever their parents still wish to impart to their children.

We overlook that that's the primary reason we separate church and state. So that parents may choose what religious teachings they wish to expose their children to when they are easily impressed. Let's face it... christmas with its gifting, easter has chocolate, there's a lot of "goodies" offered. That was the intent of the Church back when it was young. They adopted a lot of "pagen" rites to influence early converts.

[mkemse]

The problem with "bible" studies is that the various bibles teach their own faith. That conflicts with separation of church and state. And because the teacher will invariably "teach" his/her own religious beliefs with more fervor than others.

Now if you could show a well balanced, non-faith based, curriculum for the history of religions, the impact on the world (vetted by several orders including agnotics and atheists,) the basis and tenants of the respective faiths, how they overlap, how they conflict, perhaps the 'geography' of religions... that's a field of study that would be as important and as valuable as the other Social Studies we impose on our children.

That said, such classes shouldn't begin until middle school years. Elementary School aged children are still absorbing basic information. They haven't learned to "think" yet. And it would be confusing at that point to, in essence, interfere with whatever their parents still wish to impart to their children.

We overlook that that's the primary reason we separate church and state. So that parents may choose what religious teachings they wish to expose their children to when they are easily impressed. Let's face it... christmas with its gifting, easter has chocolate, there's a lot of "goodies" offered. That was the intent of the Church back when it was young. They adopted a lot of "pagen" rites to influence early converts.

Thank you very much, what you said is or was supposed to be my exact point, as a Nation by our Consitution, we must retain seperation of church and state nad let those who want to stufy the Bible in school do so in private schools orsettings designed forthat type of ciriculum, why should non christian tax payers have their tax money used to pay teacher in public school teach the bible?? they shouldn't

[mkemse]

You did not initially state how you "understood" it. You asked a question...



Which is what my response was based on. If you don't want other's opinions then don't phrase your statements as questions. As to your last question above...



How DARE we open our children up to the ability to learn about different things. :rolleyes: And before you opt to spin that wrong, read my post again. I wasn't advocating for "Christians", I was advocating for All (or lack of, meaning choosing not to follow any certain sect of) religions to be taught... Let's enlighten our children and let them decide for themselves. I know a novel concept at best.


Enlighten our Children is fine but when it comes to Religion this is a PARENT and FAMILY issue not a school decison to make, it is the parent and families responsibility to teach the child about religion not the schools job, even more so if the school is public, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH BIBLE STUDY IN SCHOOL, I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WHEN IT IS IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL USING TAX PAYERS MONEY, this is what private schools are for in addition to other things
I do not expect a private or perocial school to team the Torah, the Kuran, ect, but I also do not expect public school to teach the bible. that is what i was refering to , nothing more nothing less

My apologies if I miunderstoodwhat you wrote or meant

[mkemse]

You did not initially state how you "understood" it. You asked a question...



Which is what my response was based on. If you don't want other's opinions then don't phrase your statements as questions. As to your last question above...



How DARE we open our children up to the ability to learn about different things. :rolleyes: And before you opt to spin that wrong, read my post again. I wasn't advocating for "Christians", I was advocating for All (or lack of, meaning choosing not to follow any certain sect of) religions to be taught... Let's enlighten our children and let them decide for themselves. I know a novel concept at best.


Teaching children differen things is one thing, mandating they study the Bible IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS is entirely different, teach them different forms of Physical Education, Different Types of Healthy Eating, bUrt leace Religious teaching to private schools or families NOT public schools

[mkemse]

To make sure I have made my point understandable, Teaching Religion in a Private School is fine, Mandating it in PUBLIC SCHOOLS at Taxpayers expense is not only wrong, but crosses line of sperating church and state,


Prayer in Public School - Drawing the Line of Permissible Expression
The Supreme Court's decisions over the past forty years set forth principles that distinguish impermissible governmental religious speech from the constitutionally protected private religious speech of students. For example, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible, or other religious activities. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); School Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Nor may school officials attempt to persuade or compel students to participate in prayer or other religious activities. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 599 (1992). Such conduct is "attributable to the State" and thus violates the Establishment Clause. Weisman, 505 U.S. at 587.

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). In addition, the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302. For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313.

The difference here is is
if a student wants to pray or study privately in public school, that is acceptable, it is not acceptble to MANDATE it in Public Schools

[Ozme52]

Thank you very much, what you said is or was supposed to be my exact point...


Too bad you couldn't express yourself in the first place. Got people all riled up and no one disagrees that I can see.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Who cares about Church and State? It doesn't matter who pays the salaries or which narrow-minded section of society is offended by a well-rounded curriculum. I, personally, would rate religion as a much more important a subject than woodwork,metalwork, cooking, P.E.. I would say it is easily as important as many others. I realise that's just my own opinion - others may not agree (did I say may?) - LOL.

I feel an important subject like religion must be taught by state-run schools or they run the risk of leaving their pupils at a distinct disadvantage to children educated in other schools. Would you teach children Darwinian theories of evolution without even a nod towards competing theories such as Creationism?

TYWD

[Thorne]

Would you teach children Darwinian theories of evolution without even a nod towards competing theories such as Creationism?

LOL! You said that on purpose, didn't you? That is such a hot topic (here in the US at least) that one could burn one's eyeballs just trying to read all the differing opinions!

In the first place, Creationism is not a valid, scientific theory, it is religion, pure and simple, couched in pseudo-scientific terminology and marketed as an alternative to evolution. It's not, really, but that's how they want to portray it.

Secondly, evolution is NOT a theory, it's an established fact. It happens. We see it happening in plants and animals all around us. The only theory involved is the MECHANISM of evolution, how it happens, what causes it. And, if you are a die-hard creationist, I suppose the question of human evolution is a problem for you, but even there we can see that evolution HAS occurred, we just don't know for sure the underlying causes.

No, Creationism, like religion, has no place in public schools, though teaching a HISTORY of religion might be acceptable, if one could find a teacher who could teach the course without interjecting his or her own religious beliefs, or lack of same.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Uh huh ... it was on purpose.... I spose I'm just a trouble-maker at heart.

:)

OK, if not evolution (although I suppose, if I wanted to, I could insist it is still a theory until its causes and mechanisms are understood ... but let's not go there) then what about planetary evolution? The creation/development of planet Earth: did that happen 4.7 billion years ago (I use the American billion here) or just 6,000 years ago?


TYWD

[mkemse]

Too bad you couldn't express yourself in the first place. Got people all riled up and no one disagrees that I can see.

Unfortuetly at times I do have a difficult time expressing myself the way I would like to, my intent was never to rile anyone, but somply state that Bible Study in Public Schools should not be madated at Taxxpayers expense and should be left to parents at home or to private schools

[mkemse]

Who cares about Church and State? It doesn't matter who pays the salaries or which narrow-minded section of society is offended by a well-rounded curriculum. I, personally, would rate religion as a much more important a subject than woodwork,metalwork, cooking, P.E.. I would say it is easily as important as many others. I realise that's just my own opinion - others may not agree (did I say may?) - LOL.

I feel an important subject like religion must be taught by state-run schools or they run the risk of leaving their pupils at a distinct disadvantage to children educated in other schools. Would you teach children Darwinian theories of evolution without even a nod towards competing theories such as Creationism?

TYWD

The United States Constitution, our founding document cares about the seperation of church and state making it federal law
Yes it matter, who pays salaries, the state is prohbitied by seperation of paying the salaries of those who teach relgion, if i have a child in public school, it is MY job not that of a public school to teach my child religion, my job to decide what religion they should follow not the schoold job to tell my child they MUST study the bible, not all students are of Christian Decent, thus Bible study would not apply to them since they have other beiefs

[mkemse]

My apologies to all for starting this thread, i never should have done it

[Ozme52]

Uh huh ... it was on purpose.... I spose I'm just a trouble-maker at heart.

:)

OK, if not evolution (although I suppose, if I wanted to, I could insist it is still a theory until its causes and mechanisms are understood ... but let's not go there) then what about planetary evolution? The creation/development of planet Earth: did that happen 4.7 billion years ago (I use the American billion here) or just 6,000 years ago?


TYWD

I presume you believe gravity exists.
There are even Laws of Gravity that describe it's effects.
But we are still trying to figure out the mechanism that makes gravity work. The descriptions of how gravity works are the Theories.

So just because the mechanisms are still being investigated doesn't make evolution in and of itself a theory.

If we resume this discussion (yes, you'll find other older threads) let's not mix generic terms like evolution of the planet with biological evolution. Both meanings work in English but they are two separate discussions... that get mired together.

Theoretically :rolleyes: one can believe in a 6000 year old earth AND in biological evolution. We use the mechanisms of evolution to breed our domestic animals. We see the effects of natural selection when we misuse antibiotics and create resistant bacteria.

BTW, I'm not implying I believe in a 6000 year old earth. It just looks good for its age. ;)

[ThisYouWillDo]

My apologies to all for starting this thread, i never should have done it

You did good ... (in best American accent)

[mkemse]

You did good ... (in best American accent)

I feel like I have ruffled feather's that did not need ot be ruffled, not in terms of saying those who do not agree with me are wrong, but I may have touched on a realy touchy subject that did not belong here
Do I keep the thread going then??

[ThisYouWillDo]

Dictionary.com offers 7 definitions of "theory" plus many meanings given by other dictionaries: I reproduce the following -

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. <omitted: a definition specific to maths>
4. <omitted: a definition relating to classification of branches of science>
5. <omitted: a definition relating to method or principles>
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

These all seem to say that a theory is something that has not been proved. To be proved, the theory must be tried and tested - supported by reproducable evidence or experiments.

There is, so far as I am aware, no proof of what gravity is yet, apart from some vague weak attractive force that affects all parts of the universe simultaneously. So if we don't know what it is yet, we cannot say for certain that it does exist. It is conceivable (providing you stretch credulity to its limits) that perceived gravitational effects are, in fact, an illusion or simply "negative" centrifugal force (a desperately bad example, but the best I can think of right now!)

Having said that, I do believe in gravity, I'm just not certain that it exists.

TYWD

[ThisYouWillDo]

Do I keep the thread going then??


In a word, Yes! If you have more to say, go right on and say it!

For my part, I enjoy a healthy exchange of views. As a result of these threads I have built up an entirely undeserved reputation for being argumentative and contrary, but I have also learned a few things and even changed my mind sometimes. And look at the nonsense we're talking right now ... planetary development!

This is only debate and even if we seem upset or offended, we are all big enough to deal with views that are different from our own.

TYWD

[Thorne]

You did good ... (in best American accent)

"You dun good, buddy boy!" (West Side Story) Let's work on that accent, 'kay? :)

[Thorne]

In a word, Yes! If you have more to say, go right on and say it!

For my part, I enjoy a healthy exchange of views. As a result of these threads I have built up an entirely undeserved reputation for being argumentative and contrary, but I have also learned a few things and even changed my mind sometimes. And look at the nonsense we're talking right now ... planetary development!

This is only debate and even if we seem upset or offended, we are all big enough to deal with views that are different from our own.

TYWD

I have to agree with you here. Discussion is good for you. If someone doesn't like the topic they don't have to participate, or even read it. I can only recall one time when I lost my cool a bit (with you, I know) and I believe I apologized for it. At least I think I did. If not, let me apologize now.
I haven't noticed anyone in this thread getting upset. It could happen, with such a sensitive subject, but hopefully we are all adults here.

As for the age of the Earth, unless someone can rationally explain how we can have fossils that are measurably millions of years old while the planet itself is only 6,000 years old, I'm afraid I'll have to stick with the 5,000,000,000 year age. (The most annoying excuse I ever heard was that God put those fossils there to "trick" us. Exactly WHY he would want to trick us is a "mystery.")

[Thorne]

I do believe in gravity, I'm just not certain that it exists.

Gravity sucks!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously, though: Gravity, defined as an attractive force between particles having mass, does exist. It's been proven both mathematically and experimentally. HOW it works is a problem, one which defeated Einstein. He tried to lump gravity and electromagnetism into a unified field theory, but wasn't able to make it work. One thing they are sure of is that gravity is NOT electromagnetic in nature. Magnetically and electrically neutral particles will attract one another. Even energy exerts a gravity field. As I mentioned in a different thread, Mercury's orbit is perturbed not only by the Sun's gravity, but by the mass equivalent of the Sun's energy output (E=mc²).

[mkemse]

unless I missed something in this thread somewhere I am trying to figure out how the subject or Gravity was introduced??

[ThisYouWillDo]

unless I missed something in this thread somewhere I am trying to figure out how the subject or Gravity was introduced??

Ummmm ... ok, I am suggesting that conventional scientific theories are not fact until proven to be fact. If they cannot be proved then a scientific theory is no more valid than any other kind - such as the assertion by certain religious movements that Creationism is just as valid as the Darwinian theory of evolution. This was rebuffed by Thorne so I moved the talk on to planetary evolution.

Ozme then put me on the spot by daring me to deny the existence of gravity, and my response is, how can I deny what I do not know?

How is this connected with the main theme of the discussion? Well, I don't think any one theory should be taught to the exclusion of other competing theories. Only when all science is provable can we say "We know the mind of God" and until then we have to allow that, maybe, there are things beyond the power of science to explain, ever. And ... again, maybe ... at the Second Coming, we shall understand what science never could.



Thorne: Gravity sucks!

When you find a really big Black Hole, it blows too!

[Thorne]

unless I missed something in this thread somewhere I am trying to figure out how the subject or Gravity was introduced??

LOL! I'm not quite sure myself, now that you mention it. But that's the beauty of these kinds of threads. You can wander all over the place while still following the general direction of the original topic. That's where the fun is!

[Thorne]

When you find a really big Black Hole, it blows too!

LOL!! Brilliant!

[Logic1]

Teach the kids religion that is unbiased towards any religion and Ill support that any day. That is a good thing but Bible/Khoran/Thora studies in public schools is not a good thing imho. Especially not for public schools, and not in private schools either until the kids are old enough to be able to make up their own decisions about things.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Wouldn't it be strange if an American schoolboy discovered one day that his country's founding fathers fled Europe to avoid religious persecution but he had little or no idea about the religions concerned because teaching them was banned?

I don't really see what's wrong with teaching religion with a Christian bias in a Christian country, or an Islamic one in a Moslem country. It seems odd to me to do otherwise - almost to deny the validity of the majority faith, and certainly to undermine it: officially decreed to be of no greater value than other religions that have no place in the country concerned or in its cultural history. I grew up in a nominally Christian country. I learned about Christianity at school. My knowledge and understanding of other religions is coloured by my knowledge of Christian principles and beliefs. I am no better or worse a person for this than if I had received a "neutral" education in this regard.

I rejected God, and therefore Christianity too, and found no other faith offered anything better in its place, so I became an atheist (I don't mind discussing my beliefs here, by the way). But my morality is based upon what I learned in my younger days and I would resent anyone telling me that it is based on a heresy or a fallacy and that it is fundamentally wrong. And what should I have been taught instead?

But don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the subject must be taught with a particular bias. Let me assure you that I am in favour of free thought and self expression. I am therefore against the suppression of ideas, even religious ones.

Should "Citizenship" classes, or studies of the national constitution also be banned? Is it better to teach democracy to students of politics in USA and communism to those in China, and other political ideas afterwards? Or perhaps we must put democracy, communism, fascism and tyranny all on the same footing and let the student choose between them.

TYWD

[Moonraker]

If a person does not believe in Christianity, why should there child in a publicy funded school be required to study the bible??

We are talking study here I assume. If I study the communist manefesto at school am I being taught to be a communist.

I think religion should be a compulsory subject at early age. That is not to say it is not studied like bible classes at a church. Let the church do it's job (faith) and the school its (education). But since religion plays such a big part in everyday life (hey its 50% of the chat forbidden topics here) then it makes sense that kids should know about it, especially in these troubled times where there is a lot of misunderstanding and animosity between islam and christianity.

I read the Quaran whilst in Saudi and discussed many of the more controversial areas with arabs. This knowledge has served me well in my dealings with muslims and opinions on the current problesm in the middle east.

[mkemse]

We are talking study here I assume. If I study the communist manefesto at school am I being taught to be a communist.

I think religion should be a compulsory subject at early age. That is not to say it is not studied like bible classes at a church. Let the church do it's job (faith) and the school its (education). But since religion plays such a big part in everyday life (hey its 50% of the chat forbidden topics here) then it makes sense that kids should know about it, especially in these troubled times where there is a lot of misunderstanding and animosity between islam and christianity.

I read the Quaran whilst in Saudi and discussed many of the more controversial areas with arabs. This knowledge has served me well in my dealings with muslims and opinions on the current problesm in the middle east.

I understand what you are saying, my question was should Studing the Bible in Public School be Mandated, be required, your reading the Bible, Quaran, was done I assume at your leasure, and NOT made manditory by the school you were in, my question to you is, Why should Tax Payers, who pay for education in Public Schools, be made to pay for and their children REQUIRED in Public Schools to study the Bible, more so if they are not Christian??
The United State Constition specificly prohbits, the Governement of this country, at the Federal, State or LOcal Level from advocating 1 Religion over another, Public Schools are paid for by the Federal, States and Local Governemnt, thus if Bible Study is mandated, required in ALL public schools, Taxpayer money is paying for it, this violates seperation of Church and State, this is the Goverment favoring 1 Religion over another which is UnConstitutional, that is my point
I am not Christian, I do not want my tax dollars paying for mandated Bible Studies in my Public Schools, that is what Private, Porocial Schools are designed for among other things

[Ozme52]

Ozme then put me on the spot by daring me to deny the existence of gravity, and my response is, how can I deny what I do not know?


I did not dare you to deny the existence of gravity. I made the apparently foolish presumption that you would agree that gravity exists. That something appears to hold us to the earth.

I was using gravity to refute your statement that if we don't know how something works it can only be a theory...

You said earlier that evolution is a theory because we don't know exactly how it works. So I used gravity as a comparison. Pointed out that there are even Laws of Gravity... measurable things we can definitively state about the effects. And that the Theory of Gravity is our attempt to figure out how it works.

Yes, the thread is about Teaching Bible Studies in Public Schools.
You brought up Evolution and Creationism and took it "off topic".

I was reacting to your topic change. :rolleyes: Not discussing gravity.

Just arguing the concept of 'theory' because I, again, assumed we were about to expand the conversation to include evolution v. creationism (or intelligent design.)

[Ozme52]

Wouldn't it be strange if an American schoolboy discovered one day that his country's founding fathers fled Europe to avoid religious persecution but he had little or no idea about the religions concerned because teaching them was banned?

That's misconstruing the issue. There is no ban in teaching the history of religion. There is no ban against teaching what the various religions believe. The ban is against teaching a single religion, saying that said religion is the only correct religion, and presumably using those teachings to officially (governmentally) determine right and wrong and to mete out punishment... (teaching that) in a public school.

In fact, separation of church and state ensures that everyone in this country is allowed to privately teach their own single religion without interference from the government. Separation of church and state was inspired to avoid such bans. To give freedom of religion.


I don't really see what's wrong with teaching religion with a Christian bias in a Christian country, or an Islamic one in a Moslem country. It seems odd to me to do otherwise - almost to deny the validity of the majority faith, and certainly to undermine it: officially decreed to be of no greater value than other religions that have no place in the country concerned or in its cultural history. I grew up in a nominally Christian country. I learned about Christianity at school. My knowledge and understanding of other religions is coloured by my knowledge of Christian principles and beliefs. I am no better or worse a person for this than if I had received a "neutral" education in this regard.

I rejected God, and therefore Christianity too, and found no other faith offered anything better in its place, so I became an atheist (I don't mind discussing my beliefs here, by the way). But my morality is based upon what I learned in my younger days and I would resent anyone telling me that it is based on a heresy or a fallacy and that it is fundamentally wrong. And what should I have been taught instead?

But don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the subject must be taught with a particular bias. Let me assure you that I am in favour of free thought and self expression. I am therefore against the suppression of ideas, even religious ones.

That's the whole point TY. If you condone publicly teaching the 'majority' religion you condone suppression of the others. You would not be allowed to reject god nor the 'majority' religion, let alone choose another.

What's the majority religion in the USA? Don't say Christianity. Because I'm sure that there would be an uproar of dissent if I insisted on teaching everyones' kids Catholicism. Or Mormanism. Or Nazarene. Or Baptist. Or Southern Baptist. Or made everyone learn Hebrew and get all the boys circumcised :rolleyes: so they could be Jews for Jesus.


Should "Citizenship" classes, or studies of the national constitution also be banned? Is it better to teach democracy to students of politics in USA and communism to those in China, and other political ideas afterwards? Or perhaps we must put democracy, communism, fascism and tyranny all on the same footing and let the student choose between them.


You make my point. We should give more effort into showing both the unbiased pros and cons of each governmental form. Because we don't, we promote democracy and teach our children to reject other forms out of hand. THAT is what would happen if we taught a particular religion in public school.

[Ozme52]

I am not Christian, I do not want my tax dollars paying for mandated Bible Studies in my Public Schools, that is what Private, Porocial Schools are designed for among other things

So if you were a Christian it would be okay?

You're motivated for the wrong reason.

[Moonraker]

my question to you is, Why should Tax Payers, who pay for education in Public Schools, be made to pay for and their children REQUIRED in Public Schools to study the Bible, more so if they are not Christian??

Maybe I didn't make my view clear when I said "I think religion should be a compulsory subject at early age.". When I say religion I don't mean the Bible and I don't mean Christianity, I mean religion. What is it? What are the major religions and teachings? What similarities and differences are there?

[mkemse]

Maybe I didn't make my view clear when I said "I think religion should be a compulsory subject at early age.". When I say religion I don't mean the Bible and I don't mean Christianity, I mean religion. What is it? What are the major religions and teachings? What similarities and differences are there?

No I understand that, I do not believe ANY relgion should be taught at Tax Payers exspese, be it Christianity, Judiasm, Indusim, that is what Private Schools, TEmples, ect are for to teach religion, Public Schools should teach what they are paid to which are the 3R's, Science, Physical Eduction, Drivers ect ect let ourside sources and Parents outside scholds teach their children the various aspecyts of their Religion not schools, I am not Chrisitan, but If my school wanted to teach my children the following of MY FSAITH, in a Public School, I would oject to that as well, there arefar to manything children need ot clearn in Public School to insert relgion in

[Thorne]

Maybe I didn't make my view clear when I said "I think religion should be a compulsory subject at early age.". When I say religion I don't mean the Bible and I don't mean Christianity, I mean religion. What is it? What are the major religions and teachings? What similarities and differences are there?

I agree that the subject should be taught, but not at an early age. I'm not even sure high school would be the time for something so controversial. As a college level course, such a study of the foundations of religion, not any particular religion, should be, and I believe generally is, an elective course.

The problem with trying to teach these things at an earlier age is that in many cases the parents and churches are busy teaching (read brainwashing) their kids into their own particular brand of religion. Any kind of study which shows how religions develop and evolve would generally, I believe, raise serious questions which the parents, and especially the churches, don't want the kids to ask. You then wind up with the parents and churches fighting with the educators and the kids wind up suffering through a general lack of education. Not too different from what is happening in this country (USA) now.

[ThisYouWillDo]

... teaching (read brainwashing) ...

My gosh! You really are a cynic, aren't you?

[Thorne]

My gosh! You really are a cynic, aren't you?

I prefer the term realist.

We tend to refer to those groups or cultures which we don't agree with as being ones which brainwash their followers. Aside from the details, how is what the Catholic Church, or the Protestant Churches, or Islam, or Judaism, or any of the dozens of other mainstream religions, different from what Charles Manson, or David Koresh, or any other cult does. They teach their followers what they want them to know, get them to start the children out as soon as possible, before they can become contaminated by another religion, and teach their people that their's is the only true way to salvation. Call it what you will, it's still brainwashing.

[Ozme52]

No I understand that, I do not believe ANY relgion should be taught at Tax Payers exspese, be it Christianity, Judiasm, Indusim, that is what Private Schools, TEmples, ect are for to teach religion, Public Schools should teach what they are paid to which are the 3R's, Science, Physical Eduction, Drivers ect ect let ourside sources and Parents outside scholds teach their children the various aspecyts of their Religion not schools, I am not Chrisitan, but If my school wanted to teach my children the following of MY FSAITH, in a Public School, I would oject to that as well, there arefar to manything children need ot clearn in Public School to insert relgion in


You're either missing or ignoring what moonraker said. Would you deny teaching how religion has affected history, science, philosophy?

Or are you intent on limiting the discussion to "Bible Studies"?

[Ozme52]

Maybe I didn't make my view clear when I said "I think religion should be a compulsory subject at early age.". When I say religion I don't mean the Bible and I don't mean Christianity, I mean religion. What is it? What are the major religions and teachings? What similarities and differences are there?


I agree that the subject should be taught, but not at an early age. I'm not even sure high school would be the time for something so controversial. As a college level course, such a study of the foundations of religion, not any particular religion, should be, and I believe generally is, an elective course.

The problem with trying to teach these things at an earlier age is that in many cases the parents and churches are busy teaching (read brainwashing) their kids into their own particular brand of religion. Any kind of study which shows how religions develop and evolve would generally, I believe, raise serious questions which the parents, and especially the churches, don't want the kids to ask. You then wind up with the parents and churches fighting with the educators and the kids wind up suffering through a general lack of education. Not too different from what is happening in this country (USA) now.

I agree with moonraker here. What he's suggesting would actually counteract what you (and I agree) are saying is happening in many homes. You know as well as I (idiomatic phrasing) that young children will actually apply their unabashed youthful honesty and will ask that vital question... "If all these religions are really the same... why do they fight with each other?" and maybe the next generation won't be so inclined to fight over their religions.

Of course, that would only really work if you could standardize the course and get it taught worldwide. Yeah! That's the ticket!! :rolleyes:

I recognize you are taking the pragmatic view... because it would only work if we could ensure the teachers were themselves brutally honest about all the different religions.

[fantassy]

I agree that the subject should be taught, but not at an early age. I'm not even sure high school would be the time for something so controversial. As a college level course, such a study of the foundations of religion, not any particular religion, should be, and I believe generally is, an elective course.

The problem with trying to teach these things at an earlier age is that in many cases the parents and churches are busy teaching (read brainwashing) their kids into their own particular brand of religion. Any kind of study which shows how religions develop and evolve would generally, I believe, raise serious questions which the parents, and especially the churches, don't want the kids to ask. You then wind up with the parents and churches fighting with the educators and the kids wind up suffering through a general lack of education. Not too different from what is happening in this country (USA) now.

I actually have taught selections from the Bible to high school freshmen and never received a single complaint or had a controversy over it. Perhaps I was lucky. I taught a unit on creation myths in my freshman English class. We studied Greek/Roman, Norse, Native American, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and then we read part of Genesis. I was careful to preface that reading with a disclaimer that I was not saying Genesis was a myth. We compared and contrasted. I told my students they could interpret the commonalities among the various creation stories as evidence of the truth of the Bible or they could interpret it as the Bible taking elements from older creation stories.
The Bible can be and should be discussed in public schools . . . as a cultural influence. It is impossible to understand our history, politics and literature without knowing anything about religion and the Bible. The key is to teach ABOUT the Bible and religion but NOT to prostheletize. The teacher must remain objective. How can one understand The Scarlet Letter or Dante's Inferno or the origins of the US and the Constitution without learning about the religious influences?

[mkemse]

You're either missing or ignoring what moonraker said. Would you deny teaching how religion has affected history, science, philosophy?

Or are you intent on limiting the discussion to "Bible Studies"?

The original question I asked, if looked at specificly says BIBLE STUDY

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne,

You might prefer to regard yourself as a realist, but what you display is cynicism.

You're right that "we" try to suggest that people "we" disagree with are brainwashing their audience, but that's just "us" propagandizing. The mainstream Christian Churches do not try to prevent contact with other sects or religions, nor do they condemn them. Admittedly, some bigots in Ireland and Scotland still object to contacts between Catholic/Protestant communities, but this is on historical-political grounds rather than religious ones, and is not condoned in any way by the mainstream churches (and, for clarity's sake, I do not regard the either Free Church of Scotland or the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster as mainstream).

All schools that I know of here, including Roman Catholic and Church of England schools teach their pupils about all the major faiths, although they obviously follow their own particular forms of worship in school assemblies and the like.

And that is as it should be.

TYWD

[goalt]

I'm being a bad girl and posting this without reading the thread. :p

My thoughts on Bible study in public school are as such: It is perfectly fine IF it is within a class on world cultures and studied along with other mythologies. If you are going to teach what is in the Bible, also teach the Quaran, Greek mythology, Norse mythology (<3), etc.

[mkemse]

I'm being a bad girl and posting this without reading the thread. :p

My thoughts on Bible study in public school are as such: It is perfectly fine IF it is within a class on world cultures and studied along with other mythologies. If you are going to teach what is in the Bible, also teach the Quaran, Greek mythology, Norse mythology (<3), etc.

No the question posted and asked was SPECIFICLY BIBLE STUDY and no other Religions in Public Schools, no as a Tax Payer I do not want the Bible mandated in Public Schools that I pay for and Support,
Id religion in General is taughtm and it ia not a mandate, students havetheir choice to take the clas or not, that is 1 thing, but to MANDATE the Bible is wrong, this is just my feelings, hope i do not offend anyone, in religious studies you cna descuss various aspects of deifferent religons and how they inpact your life and that of others, when you have SPECIFICLY BIBLE study, it is desifned to only teach the BIBLE, and no other religion,

[Thorne]

Thorne,

You might prefer to regard yourself as a realist, but what you display is cynicism.
Semantics. Call it what you will.


The mainstream Christian Churches do not try to prevent contact with other sects or religions, nor do they condemn them.
I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, my parents still belong. When I was growing up it was very difficult for a Catholic to get permission to marry a non-Catholic, and if permission was granted it was with the stipulation that all children would be raised as Catholics. (My maternal grandfather and my wife's father were both protestants, but none of their children were permitted to be raised as such.) Basically the Church said, "Your religious beliefs are fine, but don't try to teach them to children of Catholics."


All schools that I know of here, including Roman Catholic and Church of England schools teach their pupils about all the major faiths, although they obviously follow their own particular forms of worship in school assemblies and the like.
And that is as it should be.
Yes, it is. But there is a difference between teaching students ABOUT the major faiths and indoctrinating them into a specific religion. Showing students the differences and similarities between religions doesn't offset the "brainwashing", or teaching if you prefer, which tells them that this ONE particular religion is the only TRUE religion.

[mkemse]

Semantics. Call it what you will.


I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, my parents still belong. When I was growing up it was very difficult for a Catholic to get permission to marry a non-Catholic, and if permission was granted it was with the stipulation that all children would be raised as Catholics. (My maternal grandfather and my wife's father were both protestants, but none of their children were permitted to be raised as such.) Basically the Church said, "Your religious beliefs are fine, but don't try to teach them to children of Catholics."


Yes, it is. But there is a difference between teaching students ABOUT the major faiths and indoctrinating them into a specific religion. Showing students the differences and similarities between religions doesn't offset the "brainwashing", or teaching if you prefer, which tells them that this ONE particular religion is the only TRUE religion.


Teaching About Faith in general is fine, but do not indoctrine it into the Teachin,g in Public Scholls, do not take Certain Portion od the Bible and teach those,
I am not of Christian Faith, however, if my public school wanted to teach the Kouran, The Torha, ect I would appose that also, that is for Relgious Schools, Sunday SChools, Chuch's ect, NO punblic schools, and no i am NOT an Athiest, I just simply do not believe that students is a PUBLIC Schol should be required to study and know the Bible and not other religion,s if they wanted to mandate studing the Torah, or Kouran, I am oppsed ot that as well, Public Schols should be used ot Teach the 3R's, Math, Science, Phys Ed ect NOT indoctrinate a Religion, this is why the United State sHas SeperationOf Church and State to insure the Goernemnt does not push one relgion over anothe,r and both Tax Payer money and local taxes pay for Public schools, thus the seperation of church and stae
If there is a class that give an over view of say Christianity over Judiam, Or Islam ect, as a learning tool that is fine, but over sight conmparing the variousrealgions is entirely different the the Svhools saying "We are going to make our Students read and study the Bible" this favoirs 1 religion overthe other and violates in a publish area the seperation is all iam trying to say

[ThisYouWillDo]

I don't think it appropriate to teach Norse mythology, interesting though that subject would be, because there is no longer any significant number of Norse pagans, and especially few, I dare say, in the United States. Furthermore, the relevance of those myths to the present world condition is far less than the relevance of Christianity or Islam.

So teach pupils about all the major religions and allude to others. Let those who wish to specia1ise discover the others later (why is "specia1ise" turned into "spe******e"? Censorship gone mad!).

As for acts of worship, let the school worship according to either the majority religion or the specific faith it professes. Pupils who do not belong to that faith chould be allowed to share in the act of worship, or to do extra maths instead ... I mean private study ...

Next question: Should the study of the French language be compusory in state schools or not? If I wish my child to speak English only, why should my tax dollars be used to educate others in a language that is spoken hardly anywhere in USA, and where it is, it's spoken differently from the way it is spoken in France.


Education is about expanding the mind and learning how to think. It doesn't really matter what facts and information you learn, real education is understanding how to apply that knowledge. It may have failed abysmally in my case, but that's not due to the fact that I had compulsory RE lessons at school, and the tax-payer's money wouldn't have been better spent teaching me more about calculus or the works of Shakespeare

TYWD

[mkemse]

I don't think it appropriate to teach Norse mythology, interesting though that subject would be, because there is no longer any significant number of Norse pagans, and especially few, I dare say, in the United States. Furthermore, the relevance of those myths to the present world condition is far less than the relevance of Christianity or Islam.

So teach pupils about all the major religions and allude to others. Let those who wish to specia1ise discover the others later (why is "specia1ise" turned into "spe******e"? Censorship gone mad!).

As for acts of worship, let the school worship according to either the majority religion or the specific faith it professes. Pupils who do not belong to that faith chould be allowed to share in the act of worship, or to do extra maths instead ... I mean private study ...

Next question: Should the study of the French language be compusory in state schools or not? If I wish my child to speak English only, why should my tax dollars be used to educate others in a language that is spoken hardly anywhere in USA, and where it is, it's spoken differently from the way it is spoken in France.


Education is about expanding the mind and learning how to think. It doesn't really matter what facts and information you learn, real education is understanding how to apply that knowledge. It may have failed abysmally in my case, but that's not due to the fact that I had compulsory RE lessons at school, and the tax-payer's money wouldn't have been better spent teaching me more about calculus or the works of Shakespeare

TYWD


But was Norse Mythology Mandated, if it was Mandateds, then NO I doagree that EVERY School in the United States Should Mandate ENglish, if you live here you need ot lear our native languae, if i livei n France I would need ot learn French, ect

Educating is one thing, forcing certain Religious beliefs on people IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS is another thing

BTW, in College you are require to take and Learn Latin for Pre Med because all Presicptuins are witten in Latin, if you want to be a Pharmacisit the same, but there is a world of difference between learinig Latin which is a as a "dead Language" or a Foreign Language , and forcing students to Study Religious Scriptures they nor their families follow or believe in
Mythology may be a requiremnet for CErtain Degrees, I have never ever heard of any BIBLE Study being a requirement unless you are in a Seminary or Convent, in which casr it si PRIVAETLY FUNDED, local tax payer and local governemtns do NOT pay he slalries of those in Seminaries or Convents the Church does

[TomOfSweden]

As a staunch atheist, I think religious education is very important.

1) Without extensive bible study we'll be blind to a large proportion of Western references in literature, all the way up until the 20'th century. Which would be a shame, especially to those of us with literary ambitions.

2) It's great to have education in all the worlds religions, so that people can compare them. And then I hope that people will understand that they're all equally plausible as hypothetical theories. I can't imagine anything more damaging for a persons soul than to receive education in only one religion, which will be the case if your parents are religious. ie, you'll naturally only hear their version of events.

3) Context needs to be taught. People need to do more than just interpret the Bible in today's world. They need to know what the words in the Bible meant to people in the time they where written, (which is very alien to us). This needs to be taught and plenty of expert guidance. It's pretty deep stuff. Why was the empty void, Leviathan, so terrifying? Why was it portrayed like a monster? It doesn't say in the Bible and isn't self evident.

4) I think it would be good to hear a short history of the Bible, and be informed about the large variety of Christian ideas and Bibles. It might also help to learn that the "original"/"real" Bible, is just loose pages and a collection of articles. It quite ok, according to original Christian faith to just pick and chose which of the gospels to take seriously. They should be informed about the Apocrypha. The original Christian Church is today just a little sect called Ebionites. How did they fall out of favour? They where the first.

5) I think it should be accompanied with a short philosophical introduction, so people will understand where these ideas come from. They should learn about the Unmoved Mover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_Mover) theory by Aristotle and learn about Thomas Aquinas on it. They should learn about Philo of Alexandria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_of_Alexandria.
It would be good if they heard about Enuma Elish and the Babylonian myths, so they understand from which culture Judaism grew, and the sources of their myths.

It wouldn't hurt if people learned that Jesus could have been one or many Pharisees. As a Pharisee he of course only repeating the words first penned by Philo of Alexandria, and was free of any original ideas. Being taught the hypothetical theory that Jesus might just have been a run of the mill Jewish prophet for the time, and doing very ordinary prophety things. Presenting the evidence for this theory, I think can't hurt. The Christian tendency to see Jesus as a magic man, I think is very unfortunate and seems to be a hard theory to dispel.

6) Learning about religion in School doesn't violate the separation of religion and state. It's preaching it and singing psalms and stuff which would violate it. Sweden has the same constitutional law when it comes to religion, and we've got plenty of religion taught in school. There's no conflict.

I don't think education is ever bad.

[mkemse]

As a staunch atheist, I think religious education is very important.

1) Without extensive bible study we'll be blind to a large proportion of Western references in literature, all the way up until the 20'th century. Which would be a shame, especially to those of us with literary ambitions.

2) It's great to have education in all the worlds religions, so that people can compare them. And then I hope that people will understand that they're all equally plausible as hypothetical theories. I can't imagine anything more damaging for a persons soul than to receive education in only one religion, which will be the case if your parents are religious. ie, you'll naturally only hear their version of events.

3) Context needs to be taught. People need to do more than just interpret the Bible in today's world. They need to know what the words in the Bible meant to people in the time they where written, (which is very alien to us). This needs to be taught and plenty of expert guidance. It's pretty deep stuff. Why was the empty void, Leviathan, so terrifying? Why was it portrayed like a monster? It doesn't say in the Bible and isn't self evident.

4) I think it would be good to hear a short history of the Bible, and be informed about the large variety of Christian ideas and Bibles. It might also help to learn that the "original"/"real" Bible, is just loose pages and a collection of articles. It quite ok, according to original Christian faith to just pick and chose which of the gospels to take seriously. They should be informed about the Apocrypha. The original Christian Church is today just a little sect called Ebionites. How did they fall out of favour? They where the first.

5) I think it should be accompanied with a short philosophical introduction, so people will understand where these ideas come from. They should learn about the Unmoved Mover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_Mover) theory by Aristotle and learn about Thomas Aquinas on it. They should learn about Philo of Alexandria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_of_Alexandria.
It would be good if they heard about Enuma Elish and the Babylonian myths, so they understand from which culture Judaism grew, and the sources of their myths.

It wouldn't hurt if people learned that Jesus could have been one or many Pharisees. As a Pharisee he of course only repeating the words first penned by Philo of Alexandria, and was free of any original ideas. Being taught the hypothetical theory that Jesus might just have been a run of the mill Jewish prophet for the time, and doing very ordinary prophety things. Presenting the evidence for this theory, I think can't hurt. The Christian tendency to see Jesus as a magic man, I think is very unfortunate and seems to be a hard theory to dispel.

6) Learning about religion in School doesn't violate the separation of religion and state. It's preaching it and singing psalms and stuff which would violate it. Sweden has the same constitutional law when it comes to religion, and we've got plenty of religion taught in school. There's no conflict.

I don't think education is ever bad.

I respectfully disagree with you, I am not an Athiest, how ever I do not want my Tax Payer Dollars to be used in Public Schools to FORCE my children to study and discuss the Bible and Sing Palsm if we as a Family do not follow the Bible and yes it is violation of church and State, Public Schools here are funded by boththe State and Local Governemnt, by using Pub;ic Schools to teach the Bible, using these money, it violates out Constitution which which clearly states that The Gorvernemnt herewillnot favor 1 religion over another

[Thorne]

6) Learning about religion in School doesn't violate the separation of religion and state. It's preaching it and singing psalms and stuff which would violate it. Sweden has the same constitutional law when it comes to religion, and we've got plenty of religion taught in school. There's no conflict.

I don't think education is ever bad.
I agree! Teaching about the origins and myths of religion, a comparison of the different religions, even a literary and historical study of the various religious works, such as the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, would not violate the separation of Church and State, provided those who are teaching it do not start preaching it. Supporting one religion over another, even supporting the idea of any religion over atheism, WOULD violate that separation, however.

Like it or not, religion has been, and remains, a major part of history and culture around the world. Learning about religion is necessary to our understanding of the world around us. I just don't see people in this country, at least, being able to easily separate the history from the theology.

[TomOfSweden]

I respectfully disagree with you, I am not an Athiest, how ever I do not want my Tax Payer Dollars to be used in Public Schools to FORCE my children to study and discuss the Bible and Sing Palsm if we as a Family do not follow the Bible and yes it is violation of church and State, Public Schools here are funded by boththe State and Local Governemnt, by using Pub;ic Schools to teach the Bible, using these money, it violates out Constitution which which clearly states that The Gorvernemnt herewillnot favor 1 religion over another

But religion is a big part of the world. Lot's of people are religious. I don't see how this is any different than learning about geography, (which is another neglected subject in the states). Or what about political science, philosophy or history. How do you teach history without touching on religion? It's about communication. So is language. I don't see a difference. There's a world of difference between learning about something and having it preached to you.

I often see Americans say stuff like, "We've got a shared moral base because of our earlier shared faith in Christianity". That to me is a strong indicator that the educational system isn't working. If people don't know what makes Christian moral codes different from humanist moral codes, or Roman, they don't know why they believe what they believe. This is nothing less than intellectual poverty.

Saying a mountain isn't there because it isn't in the constitution, doesn't make the mountain go away.

[ThisYouWillDo]

mkemse

I am no expert on the laws of the United States, but I do believe you are misinterpreting the Constitution when you say that expending public money on educating American children about religion, or, indeed, about Christianity specifically, is a violation of its provisions.

My reading of the First Amendment is that Congress may not restrict the practice of any religious activity, not that it must not promote it. But a balanced education would neither promote nor suppress religious ideas; it would examine them to identify what was good and bad about them.

I quote below the First Amendment, and also, Ron Paul's speech to the House of Representatives in 2003 on this matter:


Bill of Rights

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.




HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2003

The First Amendment Protects Religious Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.
In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs. Should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.

I don't know the full history of the events leading up to Paul's speech, nor what happened afterwards, but the points he made seem eminently sensible to me.

TYWD

[mkemse]

But religion is a big part of the world. Lot's of people are religious. I don't see how this is any different than learning about geography, (which is another neglected subject in the states). Or what about political science, philosophy or history. How do you teach history without touching on religion? It's about communication. So is language. I don't see a difference. There's a world of difference between learning about something and having it preached to you.

I often see Americans say stuff like, "We've got a shared moral base because of our earlier shared faith in Christianity". That to me is a strong indicator that the educational system isn't working. If people don't know what makes Christian moral codes different from humanist moral codes, or Roman, they don't know why they believe what they believe. This is nothing less than intellectual poverty.

Saying a mountain isn't there because it isn't in the constitution, doesn't make the mountain go away.


The Educational system in most cases does not, not work because of the cirruculm, it does not work because of the lack of quailfied teachers,
The Religious aspect has nothing to do with how well a school or it's students do,
IE: You could be the Greatest PlAYERS in History but if you do not have GODD OR GREAT COACH (ie: teacher) you will not win, a school is as successfull as the teacher make it with their teaching skills, and students wil only learn as well as they are taught by qualified teachers
You can have good student with GREAT potential but if thier Teacher is not good, they student will not learn

[TomOfSweden]

The Educational system in most cases does not, not work because of the cirruculm, it does not work because of the lack of quailfied teachers,
The Religious aspect has nothing to do with how well a school or it's students do,
IE: You could be the Greatest PlAYERS in History but if you do not have GODD OR GREAT COACH (ie: teacher) you will not win, a school is as successfull as the teacher make it with their teaching skills, and students wil only learn as well as they are taught by qualified teachers
You can have good student with GREAT potential but if thier Teacher is not good, they student will not learn

I had a religion teacher once. She was a devout New Christian loon who had moved to Sweden from the states to be part of Swedenborg's religion close to where her prophet was born. She was not even an outstanding teacher. She was pretty biased in favour of New Christianity. But all it took was her mentioning other religions and having us read the literature for it all to sink in. She "knew" the true religion. So much was obvious. You don't need to be smart or even well read to be a teacher. Just to be blessed as a pedagogue, and know a little bit more than the students.

I'm still happy I was in her class. And as always, learning in school is more about being a diligent student than being exposed to great teachers. It's allowing oneself to be exposed to information that's the hard bit. Religion is mostly quite boring, so it's good that we get forced to read it in school. At least we in Sweden are.

Not only do I know Muslims are crazy. I also know why. I've been hanging out with devout Sikhs in Bangkok, (they have a massive beautiful temple hidden in the slums there) and been to a Kali puja in Hampi, (an huge temple complex hidden in the deep jungle in India). None of that would have happened if I hadn't been forced to understand their point of view in my youth. I'm sure of it.

It is very hard to understand purely abstract, (and fantastic) concepts. It needs some guidance. How would you explain the "unmoved mover" theory to somebody who'd never heard of it.

[mkemse]

I had a religion teacher once. She was a devout New Christian loon who had moved to Sweden from the states to be part of Swedenborg's religion close to where her prophet was born. She was not even an outstanding teacher. She was pretty biased in favour of New Christianity. But all it took was her mentioning other religions and having us read the literature for it all to sink in. She "knew" the true religion. So much was obvious. You don't need to be smart or even well read to be a teacher. Just to be blessed as a pedagogue, and know a little bit more than the students.

I'm still happy I was in her class. And as always, learning in school is more about being a diligent student than being exposed to great teachers. It's allowing oneself to be exposed to information that's the hard bit. Religion is mostly quite boring, so it's good that we get forced to read it in school. At least we in Sweden are.

Not only do I know Muslims are crazy. I also know why. I've been hanging out with devout Sikhs in Bangkok, (they have a massive beautiful temple hidden in the slums there) and been to a Kali puja in Hampi, (an huge temple complex hidden in the deep jungle in India). None of that would have happened if I hadn't been forced to understand their point of view in my youth. I'm sure of it.

It is very hard to understand purely abstract, (and fantastic) concepts. It needs some guidance. How would you explain the "unmoved mover" theory to somebody who'd never heard of it.

The whole point of my original post was, DO YOU THINK THAT STUDYING THE BIBLE should be a requirement of Law In The Unite Sates in Tax Payer {ublicly Funded Schools, NO, that is why the church established Religion Schools Perocial Schools, so they can teach those students thedetails of the Bible, Making Students in a Publicly Financed Schoo at Tax Payers and Government Expsense in the UnitedStaes Violate the Seperation odf Church and State in the United States, our Contition specifly says that the Gonernment, be it local or federal will not FAVOR one religion overthe other,
Therefore Be it Studying The Bible, in Class, The Torha In Class The Kouran In Class and going through each Religious book andsinis Palms and decussing indetail what each chapter means and does, IS A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION, it is not allowed under our Fedral Laws except if the School is PRIVELTY funded and operated, the Churches in the United States own and operate 1,000's of Cathlic Schools, which is where Bible study should be not in Tax Payer funded Public Schools and made mandoroty, if a personin a Public School wished to privates on their own study the Bible, on their own time, in private, in a Library at SChool, I have no issue with thatm i do when a child is FROCED to study a Relgion that they do not pratice do to their up bringing
I do not want me child in a PUBLIC TAx Payer Governemt Funde schol being told "We do not care what you religious up brining is, you will study and learn the Bible," sorry, this is wrong a fatih calls where all religions are discusssed and compared to each other but a student is NOT indoctrinated into a specific Religion, is one thing, forcing them to study a religion, in depth and studing eacg chapter of a Bbile, what each Book Means, what it says ect is simply not allowed by our Contitution they do not believieve in or follow is another thing
That is why we Have Freedom of Religion, so everyone here can decide what religion they wish to follow and pratice as they see fit without ANY government interference or our gorvernemnt saying you MUST study this religion whether you want to or not

[Thorne]

But religion is a big part of the world. Lot's of people are religious. I don't see how this is any different than learning about geography, (which is another neglected subject in the states). Or what about political science, philosophy or history. How do you teach history without touching on religion? It's about communication. So is language. I don't see a difference. There's a world of difference between learning about something and having it preached to you.
Again, I have to agree with you here, wholeheartedly. The problem in the US, as I see it, is that the vast majority of the faithful don't WANT to know about the origins of their religion. That might lead them to question whether or not their religion (NOT their faith) is right after all. And THAT is the best reason I can think of to actually TEACH such things!


I often see Americans say stuff like, "We've got a shared moral base because of our earlier shared faith in Christianity". That to me is a strong indicator that the educational system isn't working. If people don't know what makes Christian moral codes different from humanist moral codes, or Roman, they don't know why they believe what they believe. This is nothing less than intellectual poverty.
Saying a mountain isn't there because it isn't in the constitution, doesn't make the mountain go away.
This is where things have gotten out of hand over here. Those who are fervently anti-religious don't even want the CONCEPT of religion uttered in schools. In my opinion they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more we teach children about the origins and evolution of religious doctrine, about how those in charge tend to pervert the teachings of their forebears to foster their own interpretations, about how and why moral codes came about, then the less likely those children are to commit to a specific religion and become more accepting of other people's beliefs.

Instead, the public school system has become a farce. Don't teach the kids a moral code, because our moral code is based upon the ten commandments, and that's religion. And when those kids do something against that code, why, it's not their fault! Don't punish them! Blame the teachers, blame the parents, but don't blame the system! I'm just glad my own kids are finally out of it. And I managed to teach them to be good kids without the "benefit" of religion and despite the school system.

Amen!

[ThisYouWillDo]

It's all Satan's influence!

[mkemse]

Again, I have to agree with you here, wholeheartedly. The problem in the US, as I see it, is that the vast majority of the faithful don't WANT to know about the origins of their religion. That might lead them to question whether or not their religion (NOT their faith) is right after all. And THAT is the best reason I can think of to actually TEACH such things!


This is where things have gotten out of hand over here. Those who are fervently anti-religious don't even want the CONCEPT of religion uttered in schools. In my opinion they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more we teach children about the origins and evolution of religious doctrine, about how those in charge tend to pervert the teachings of their forebears to foster their own interpretations, about how and why moral codes came about, then the less likely those children are to commit to a specific religion and become more accepting of other people's beliefs.

Instead, the public school system has become a farce. Don't teach the kids a moral code, because our moral code is based upon the ten commandments, and that's religion. And when those kids do something against that code, why, it's not their fault! Don't punish them! Blame the teachers, blame the parents, but don't blame the system! I'm just glad my own kids are finally out of it. And I managed to teach them to be good kids without the "benefit" of religion and despite the school system.

Amen!


you can teach children morals codes at home that is what parents are for

no offense meant but our moral code is NOT based on the 10 Commandments,
or not for everyone anyway,

School are terrible because the teacher that most schools hire are not qualified to teach
It is the Parents jobto teach morals, if parents want moral taught at school they should go to PRIVATE Schoos not Publiv Schools, i teach me children what I fele is right fore them, morals wise, nonoe has ever used drugs, they do not drink, they do not engagei n pre marital sex, and they are well over 18
i tough my chidrem what I felt they need to learn, i trust my schoold to teach my chidlrem how to read,write, spell, stay in good phyiscal shape, eat the right, study habbits, how hom work comes before before video games,

I od not expect nor want my school to twahc my children moral issues that is my job as a parent not their job, they can ddiscussi twiththem but it is my and my wifes decison, i supportthem, i pay fortheir educationand will ove them and supoortthem on ventrues all their lives after 12 years ofschool they will probsably neversee thier teachers again, but they will rmember the teahcer who tought them how to read for a job, how to spell for a job, how to speak correclty, how to stay in good physical sahape
Let Ptivate A religious Schools handle teaching the BIBLE, i have a very close firemd he and his wifr are very, very devoit Greeok Othodox and they told me "Public School is for teacing daily basics not for teraching and stufnig the Bbile, that iswht Private Schools were created so parents can have the scooldd that THEY psay for and the CHRUCH payts for teahc them and indoctronaye thme into thr Pible not a pyublic school teacher

and most kids thesedays that have no moral may very well come from brtoekn families, alchoholic or disfunctional families MORALS ARE WHAT A PARENT TEACHES HIS CHILD NOT WHAT MORAL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL DOES
yes ur public school are a mess, a discgrace forthe world to see, but hhat is not do to school not teaching them morals it is caused by bad behavior which is the PARENTS JOB

do you want your child in a public schol to be told by the public school, who they can and can not date, what movie they can and can not see, what they can and cannot wear daily ect no i think YOU want that job, you are teaching them that and their morals, the schools teach them everything else

btw have a wonderfull night :)

[ThisYouWillDo]

As far as I am aware, western morality is based on Christian thought.

My own morals are, I admit, more lax than those of most people - I know I am not a good teacher in that regard. I should have to say, "Do as I say, not as I do."

My kids were physically fit because of the exercise they got at school, not as a result of any drills I gave them.

I cannot understand anyone objecting to bible study - it's mind-broadening. I especially can't understand a Christian objecting to it, even an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I can understand him objecting to being made to participate in (say) Jewish acts of worship.

What you haven't explained, mkemse, is why you are advocting that state schools provide a poorer standard of education than independent ones. In an egalitarian society it is surely anathema to allow one section of the community an advantage over another because of things like wealth, relations, or contacts, not to mention race or (dare I say it) creed.

My kids wore school uniform. They were happy: I was happy - no arguments about what to wear.

TYWD

[mkemse]

As far as I am aware, western morality is based on Christian thought.

My own morals are, I admit, more lax than those of most people - I know I am not a good teacher in that regard. I should have to say, "Do as I say, not as I do."

My kids were physically fit because of the exercise they got at school, not as a result of any drills I gave them.

I cannot understand anyone objecting to bible study - it's mind-broadening. I especially can't understand a Christian objecting to it, even an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I can understand him objecting to being made to participate in (say) Jewish acts of worship.

What you haven't explained, mkemse, is why you are advocting that state schools provide a poorer standard of education than independent ones. In an egalitarian society it is surely anathema to allow one section of the community an advantage over another because of things like wealth, relations, or contacts, not to mention race or (dare I say it) creed.

My kids wore school uniform. They were happy: I was happy - no arguments about what to wear.

TYWD


My OBJECTION is NOT TO BIBLE STUDY, it is TO BIBLE STUDY AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE INPUBLIC SCHOOLS a violation of the United State Contitution Sepertion of Church and aState where is says that the governemnt will not favor 1 religion over another,

if schools public schools madate Bible study in Puniblic Scholds they are paid by Tax Payers money and local governemts who by federal law Section 1 of the US Contitution and the constitution are not allowed to show favortism of one relgion over another that is all i am saying nothing more less private schoold teach th bible, let public school teach everything else

Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. [1]

In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. [2]

if tax payer money is used to pat to mandate teaching the bible in school, yes there is free excersie of relgion in thiscountry you are freeto worship as you wish, the governemnt willnot tellyou you must folow this you mustfollow that, if they mandate Bible study in publicschools that is exactly what they are saying you must follow thisreligion you must follow and believe in that religion

[Thorne]

It's all Satan's influence!

"The Devil made me do it!" - Flip Wilson

[Thorne]

mkemse, would you have any objection to public schools using, let us say, "The Lord of the Rings" as part of a study of literature? It is considered by many scholars as a masterpiece of fiction. It is also filled with religious ideas and ideals. True, it's not Christian, though it's not far off.
How about a study of history? Hard to do without sticking religion in there somewhere. The Puritans came to this land to escape religious persecution. So did many others. Guess we shouldn't teach that in school, either.
Well, one thing for sure, we can teach the kids patriotism, can't we? Let's make sure they know the Pledge of Allegiance. No, wait, they use the "G" word in there, don't they? Guess we better not say that any more.
Anyway, we have to teach them about the marvelous Declaration of Independence, one of the building blocks of our nation. Just let them memorize... Damn! There it is again, right in the first sentence. And Holy Moses, the second sentence actually uses the word <whisper> "Creator." Can't have that! That implies a religious doctrine. Toss the Declaration!

Let's face it, this country was founded upon principles which are relatively common in most religions, but the founders were overwhelmingly Christian. They had the foresight to prevent the government from promoting one religion over any other, and allow the citizens of this country to worship (or not) as they choose. That does not negate the possibility of teaching ABOUT religion in schools. It does not mean you cannot teach the CONCEPT of God, whether the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Norse, Greek or Roman gods. Religion has played a tremendous role in the development of the world: you cannot teach children about the world without bringing religion into it somehow. And the Bible, Koran, Torah and many other religious documents have important historical significance as well. You can use these documents as tools of study, just as you would use Shakespeare's writings, or Poe's or Hemingway's. Studying the influence of religion on our world, or the evolution of religion throughout history, or even a comparison of religions, does not, in and of itself, promote a religious belief.

[mkemse]

mkemse, would you have any objection to public schools using, let us say, "The Lord of the Rings" as part of a study of literature? It is considered by many scholars as a masterpiece of fiction. It is also filled with religious ideas and ideals. True, it's not Christian, though it's not far off.
How about a study of history? Hard to do without sticking religion in there somewhere. The Puritans came to this land to escape religious persecution. So did many others. Guess we shouldn't teach that in school, either.
Well, one thing for sure, we can teach the kids patriotism, can't we? Let's make sure they know the Pledge of Allegiance. No, wait, they use the "G" word in there, don't they? Guess we better not say that any more.
Anyway, we have to teach them about the marvelous Declaration of Independence, one of the building blocks of our nation. Just let them memorize... Damn! There it is again, right in the first sentence. And Holy Moses, the second sentence actually uses the word <whisper> "Creator." Can't have that! That implies a religious doctrine. Toss the Declaration!

Let's face it, this country was founded upon principles which are relatively common in most religions, but the founders were overwhelmingly Christian. They had the foresight to prevent the government from promoting one religion over any other, and allow the citizens of this country to worship (or not) as they choose. That does not negate the possibility of teaching ABOUT religion in schools. It does not mean you cannot teach the CONCEPT of God, whether the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Norse, Greek or Roman gods. Religion has played a tremendous role in the development of the world: you cannot teach children about the world without bringing religion into it somehow. And the Bible, Koran, Torah and many other religious documents have important historical significance as well. You can use these documents as tools of study, just as you would use Shakespeare's writings, or Poe's or Hemingway's. Studying the influence of religion on our world, or the evolution of religion throughout history, or even a comparison of religions, does not, in and of itself, promote a religious belief.


My only objection is the Mandating Of Study In open Class The Holy Bible In Public Schools that is all i am saying and Indoctrinatung students to it in PUBLICLY FUNDED SCHOOLS
If someone asked me if i would object to tax payer mnoey being used to mandate the study of the Torha in Public Schools, my answer is YES I do not believe that INDOCTINATION OF ANY RELIGION BELONGS IN PUBLY FUNDED TAX PAYING SCHOOLS, that is one of the thing that privateschoold are for
The Church owns schools so they can teach there student the way of the Catholic Church, that is what a Catholic School is for in addition to the other things they teach, their parents pay for that type of schooling the Government does not supprot fincialy that type of schoolYou can learn about religion in public settings without indoctrination f they have a class where ALL religions are sutdied but the bible is not taken book by book, the torha is nottken page by page the kouran then same and they discuss what the differcne is betwee n them, that is on e thing that is NOT FORCING STUDETS to study and comprehend 1 specific religion

[mkemse]

I have no issue with Religion but as a Tax Payer and a Parent when my kids are in a public school and they do not follow the Bible due to their up bringing (Meaning They Are NOT CHRISTIAN IN FAITH), i do not want the public school to tell them "We do not care if you like or follow the Catholic faith, you will still be required to study and learn the Bible cover to cover" that I have a huge issue with
I would feel the same about them being told to do this with the Torha, The kouran ect
I am not picking out Just the Bible, but any relgion indoctrination that is not why they go to pubic schools, ifi wanted them indoctrinated i wouls send them to a privateschool

[TomOfSweden]

you can teach children morals codes at home that is what parents are for



That sounds great, but it isn't working. The richest country on earth, (and therefore with the most money to educate its population) has 38% believing in creationism. USA's educational system is in crisis. Probably, blaming only the lack of religious education is simplistic. But something has to explain why 38% of the population hold to a scientific theory that died in the 19'th century. Constitutions and principals are great and all, but only if they're working.

[ThisYouWillDo]

if tax payer money is used to pat to mandate teaching the bible in school, yes there is free excersie of relgion in thiscountry you are freeto worship as you wish, the governemnt willnot tellyou you must folow this you mustfollow that, if they mandate Bible study in publicschools that is exactly what they are saying you must follow thisreligion you must follow and believe in that religion

Tax-payer's money is used to pay for the teaching of Bible Studies in state-run schools because it is considered necessary and important. I agree that it is necessary and important.

The authorities are not using the money to indoctrinate students, but if they focus on Christian Bible Study, that is because Christianity has most relevance to the greatest number of pupils.


TYWD