Hot Bed Question Bible Study In Public Schools

[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

[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]

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

LOL!! Brilliant!

[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. 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.)

[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!

[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

[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 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.

[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

[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!!

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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 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 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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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

[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.