- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,688
- Reaction score
- 631
- Location
- Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
GarzaUK said:Yeah I agree that State and Religion should be seperate. What where is are kids going to learn about the world's different cultures and religions? Do high schools teach international history - the history of different countries? Or just American History? Whether we like it or not religion plays a big part in our world. Why not learn about it??
Heh, Israel and palestinians are close to that right now.Navy Pride said:Yes if only for the reason that In modern times I don't think any democracy started a war with another democracy...
steen said:Heh, Israel and palestinians are close to that right now.
It is an elected terrorist organization.Navy Pride said:If you think the government that was so call elected by the Palestinians is a democracy I got some waterfront policy I want to sell you in Arizona........Hamas is a terrorist organization........
GarzaUK said:I was thinking since religious people feel Creationism is a legitimite theory the same as evolution. Why not teach other religions in schools? Each of the major religions has the same merit and legitamicy as each other. Why not teach Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christainity in a seperate Religious Studies class?
It could promote understanding and tolerance between different religions. And might encourage children to decide their own faith instead of them being brainwashed or forced upon them by their parents.
A Buddhist friend of mine who originates for Thailand went to America and people their tried endlessly to convert her saying "Buddha is dead and Jesus is alive", which insulted her. A little tolerance could go along way.
tryreading said:Bad idea. There are places where kids can learn about religion, home, church, private schools, and college. People in this country are careful about mixing religion with state because that's what made a lot of our ancestors move here. They wanted freedom to, and freedom from. Maybe offer a class that teaches the histories of all religions, that's more than enough religion in taxpayer-funded schools.
Atheist said:Alhough there would also be many cons that I did not include.
tryreading said:I would think you would want the school systems, if they are going to teach religious history at all, should also explain the athiestic and agnostic points of view, that there are a lot of people who have no religion, and seem to do just fine.
tryreading said:And another possibility might be mentioned, that if there is a God, he may be a malevolent designer. What if he put us here to see how badly we would make each other suffer?
tryreading said:Let's teach all the possibilities, if we teach any. And I insist that evolution be taught in church if religion will be taught in school.
Kandahar said:How is it "mixing religion with state" to teach the various beliefs of religions? Is it an endorsement of essentialism for a teacher to teach Plato, or an endorsement of existentialism to teach Thoreau, or an endorsement of capitalism to teach Adam Smith or Ayn Rand, or an endorsement of communism to teach Karl Marx? No. Students SHOULD be exposed to various ideas throughout history that have been important, whether the ideas themselves are right or wrong.
I think it's worth noting that most European countries offer classes in religion in public schools. As a result, they are much more informed about the central tenets of Christianity (and other religions) than Americans, despite being much less pious themselves.
Kandahar said:I wouldn't have a problem with a class on religious beliefs talking about atheism or agnosticism. I think a better solution would be to offer a separate class in critical thinking. Of all the courses our education system should require but doesn't, none is more important than teaching people to be skeptical and think about things critically.
Absolutely. There's no reason to exclude a belief if it's been seriously considered by philosophers and theologians, and this one certainly has.
The government doesn't have any control over what's taught in church, so that point is moot in a public policy debate.
tryreading said:I don't think Plato, Thoreau, Smith, Rand, Marx, or their philosophies are actively trying to change the Supreme Court makeup to something more favorable to their religion, or trying to elect people who will assign FBI agents to surf the internet for naughtiness, or constantly trying in shifty ways to have their religion taught in American public schools.
tryreading said:But if you want a comparative religion course taught, I guess that's legal.
Kandahar said:What's your point? Just because some Christians behave like idiots in this country, is no reason to deprive public school children of an education on religion if they want one.
tryreading said:An education on religion. About religion, the good, bad, ugly. All religions. I agree. But have you heard of the new 'Bible Literacy Class' being proposed for public schools? There is a thread on this site regarding this. A textbook has been printed that supposedly can teach the Bible without being un-Constitutional. The course will teach only the Bible, Old and New Testaments. No Torah or Quran or any other religious books. When you start teaching new testament, that's Christian only. That's what I mean about one particular religion in this country trying to have its dogma taught in public schools. They are selfish, and controlling, and relentless.
Hornburger said:If you want to study religion in school, take a social studies class. But a class solely focusing on religion, no, that only brainwashes our children.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?