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. 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. 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. 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 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??