• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Alternate Religions Be Taught In Schools?

Should Alternate Religions Be Taught in Schools?


  • Total voters
    30
GarzaUK said:
I will say that the average European knows more about the world beyond it's borders than the average American does.

Yes but not in the way you're thinking of. The average European is more familiar with Europe as a whole and possibly the Middle East and Asia just because they really have to be. Everything is so much closer to your guys. You don't have to travel that far to get to another country. If you go south just a few miles, you hit France. If you go north, you hit Norway. Over here in America, we're dealing with a much greater land mass that is all one nation. So the equivalent of you saying that the average European knows more about Poland, for example, is like saying that the average American knows more about Virginia. Of course you Europeans have more exposure to other countries because you're all so tightly packed.
 
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...

To qualify
I'd say, or add true democracy where the people are both educated and intelligent.
And where the truth is told
Anywhere ?
Religion is ,IMO, part of man's history,thus should be taught as it is part of man' history.
Common sense, if anyone has this, can be used to determine how much time is spent on each.....
This particular "history" would be under social studies- which we had in NY state.

And I thank those responsible for the ABC checkmark spell check.
All posters should use this !
 
I think any well educated person ought to have some understanding of world history and world religions.
 
star2589 said:
I think any well educated person ought to have some understanding of world history and world religions.

I agree with you if the class is comparative of all religions. But any well educated person should also know about contraception, something which can be life saving, however the people who want religion taught in public schools fight sex education.
 
tryreading said:
I agree with you if the class is comparative of all religions.

I wasnt refering to a specific type of class, I was only saying that one way or another, a highschool graduate ought to come out with that knowledge. to me, it makes the most sense to teach it in the context of a required world history class, but i dont think it has to be that way.

I also have no opposition to public schools offering electives about specific religions, whether its a class on hinduism or christianity.


tryreading said:
But any well educated person should also know about contraception, something which can be life saving, however the people who want religion taught in public schools fight sex education.

your statement isnt quite accurate, its the people who advocate teaching christianity - not alternative religions - that are likely to fight sex education. on the other hand, sex ed advocates are more likely to fight christianity in schools.

its kind of beside the point though.
 
star2589 said:
I wasnt refering to a specific type of class, I was only saying that one way or another, a highschool graduate ought to come out with that knowledge. to me, it makes the most sense to teach it in the context of a required world history class, but i dont think it has to be that way.

I also have no opposition to public schools offering electives about specific religions, whether its a class on hinduism or christianity..

I disagree with electives about specific religions, because there is only one that would end up being taught, due to time constraints, limited public funds, and pressure from its followers.

star2589 said:
your statement isnt quite accurate, its the people who advocate teaching christianity - not alternative religions - that are likely to fight sex education. on the other hand, sex ed advocates are more likely to fight christianity in schools.

its kind of beside the point though.

Right, and its the Christians who constantly attempt to have religion taught in schools, specifically their religion. Also, sex ed advocates should fight Christianity courses in schools, they don't belong there.
 
tryreading said:
I disagree with electives about specific religions, because there is only one that would end up being taught, due to time constraints, limited public funds, and pressure from its followers.

thats not necessarily true, but even supposing it is true, what is wrong with that?
 
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.

what is wrong with that?

tryreading said:
When you start teaching new testament, that's Christian only.

the course also teaches the old testement which is jewish and christian.

tryreading said:
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.

or, maybe people are simply more interested in learning about christianity than they are about other religions. christianity also has more relevance to western history than other religions.
 
star2589 said:
thats not necessarily true, but even supposing it is true, what is wrong with that?

It is always true. Creationism, Intelligent design, the Bible Study Course, the paranoia about evolution have all come from the Christians, who want public school kids taught their religion.

What is wrong with it is you don't teach Christianity in public schools because the taxes of citizens can't be used to teach it, it would be illegal. Religion and government should not be intermixed, except in the minds of those who are religious, not publicly with public dollars.
 
tryreading said:
But teaching the importance of one religion in public schools with public money and with instruction from a government employee could legally be seen as an establishment.

an establishment is where the government says that its citizens must be members of a specific faith.

teaching the history and teachings of a specific religion in a scholarly fashion is not an establishment of religion.
 
star2589 said:
what is wrong with that?



the course also teaches the old testement which is jewish and christian.



or, maybe people are simply more interested in learning about christianity than they are about other religions. christianity also has more relevance to western history than other religions.

The people interested in learning about Christianity can learn about it in church and at home and many other places not publicly funded.
 
star2589 said:
an establishment is where the government says that its citizens must be members of a specific faith.

teaching the history and teachings of a specific religion in a scholarly fashion is not an establishment of religion.

There shouldn't be an establishment of monotheism either.

I disagree with you on the teaching of religion in general, except where all are taught, including non-belief. There is a lot of legal precedent against creationism, ID, vouchers used for religious private school, alternatives to evolution, prayer of any kind, and even the Pledge with the 'under God' added. I agree with the precedent.
 
tryreading said:
The people interested in learning about Christianity can learn about it in church and at home and many other places not publicly funded.

how does public funding make it wrong?
 
star2589 said:
how does public funding make it wrong?

Why should people have to pay for something they don't believe in or don't agree with? I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars to pay for my child to learn about Christianity at school.
 
tryreading said:
There shouldn't be an establishment of monotheism either.

you said that when you said there shouldnt be an establishment of religion. it would fall under that. and I agree with you...

BUT

how is this:

tryreading said:
teaching the importance of one religion in public schools with public money and with instruction from a government employee

an establishment of religion?

tryreading said:
I disagree with you on the teaching of religion in general, except where all are taught, including non-belief. There is a lot of legal precedent against creationism, ID, vouchers used for religious private school, alternatives to evolution, prayer of any kind, and even the Pledge with the 'under God' added. I agree with the precedent.

those are all very different things. I'm not arguing for any of them.
 
Stace said:
Why should people have to pay for something they don't believe in or don't agree with? I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars to pay for my child to learn about Christianity at school.

thats an argument for completly restructuring our government and our tax system. every single one of us pays for government functions that we dont support, but we do so as a comprimise between anarchy (which would never work sinse someone would eventually rise to power by force) and dictatorship/monarchy etc. if we're going to be a republic, it just has to be that way.

unless you're an anarchist or libertarian (I dont know, because i've not been on the forum very long), im sure that there is something that you advocate my tax dollars going to that I oppose.
 
star2589 said:
thats an argument for completly restructuring our government and our tax system. every single one of us pays for government functions that we dont support, but we do so as a comprimise between anarchy (which would never work sinse someone would eventually rise to power by force) and dictatorship/monarchy etc. if we're going to be a republic, it just has to be that way.

unless you're an anarchist or libertarian (I dont know, because i've not been on the forum very long), im sure that there is something that you advocate my tax dollars going to that I oppose.

I'm not anarchist or libertarian. I'm just a liberal. But seeing as how we as citizens can get a lot more involved with our local school board than we can with big government, we actually have more of a say over how our tax dollars are spent at the local level. If you want your child to learn religions, great. Take 'em to church. Take them to temple. Buy them some books. Send them to a religious private school. But it doesn't belong in public schools, where you have children and families that don't believe in ANY religion and they shouldn't be forced to be exposed to it if they don't want to be.
 
tryreading said:
It is always true. Creationism, Intelligent design, the Bible Study Course, the paranoia about evolution have all come from the Christians, who want public school kids taught their religion.[/quote

when I said it wasnt necessarily true, I was responding to this statement:

tryreading said:
I disagree with electives about specific religions, because there is only one that would end up being taught, due to time constraints, limited public funds, and pressure from its followers.

what you just said doesnt at all follow.

but, about what you actually just said...

I have several good christian friends with no opposition to religion classes in school. including classes on christianity. however, they are very opposed to teaching ID in science classes, etc.

that proves that its not always true. yes, there are some christians who cross the line in terms of what they want taught in school, but far from all do. and its beside the point. the fact that some people are wacko's does not mean that everything they support is necessarily wrong.

tryreading said:
What is wrong with it is you don't teach Christianity in public schools because the taxes of citizens can't be used to teach it, it would be illegal. Religion and government should not be intermixed, except in the minds of those who are religious, not publicly with public dollars.

how is it illegal?
 
Stace said:
I'm not anarchist or libertarian. I'm just a liberal. But seeing as how we as citizens can get a lot more involved with our local school board than we can with big government, we actually have more of a say over how our tax dollars are spent at the local level. If you want your child to learn religions, great. Take 'em to church. Take them to temple. Buy them some books. Send them to a religious private school. But it doesn't belong in public schools, where you have children and families that don't believe in ANY religion and they shouldn't be forced to be exposed to it if they don't want to be.

ok then, are you saying that the fact that your paying taxes does not entitle you to say that religion cannot be taught in your school, just that its your opinion that religion should not be taught in school?
 
star2589 said:
ok then, are you saying that the fact that your paying taxes does not entitle you to say that religion cannot be taught in your school, just that its your opinion that religion should not be taught in school?

Where do you get that from? It DOES entitle me to say that religion can't be taught in schools, especially if I were a member of the school board or went to the meetings, which I'm not/don't because I don't have school aged children. But if you want to pay for your child to learn religion at school because you're too lazy to teach them yourself, send them to a private school. It doesn't belong in public schools.
 
Stace said:
Where do you get that from? It DOES entitle me to say that religion can't be taught in schools, especially if I were a member of the school board or went to the meetings, which I'm not/don't because I don't have school aged children. But if you want to pay for your child to learn religion at school because you're too lazy to teach them yourself, send them to a private school. It doesn't belong in public schools.

if being a tax payer entitles you to say that religion cant be taught in school, then everyone who is against sex education is entited to say that sex education cant be taught in schools.

you're all tax payers.

now, whether religion belongs in schools is an entirely different question.
 
star2589 said:
if being a tax payer entitles you to say that religion cant be taught in school, then everyone who is against sex education is entited to say that sex education cant be taught in schools.

you're all tax payers.

now, whether religion belongs in schools is an entirely different question.

They can say it all they want. But when it comes down to the inevitable vote? Doesn't mean that they'll be in the majority.
 
Stace said:
They can say it all they want. But when it comes down to the inevitable vote? Doesn't mean that they'll be in the majority.

that is completely true.
 
star2589 said:
an establishment is where the government says that its citizens must be members of a specific faith.

teaching the history and teachings of a specific religion in a scholarly fashion is not an establishment of religion.
If you read the US Constitutionm, then you would have noted that the Government can not SUPPORT an establishment of religion. It is not the establishment of a religion that is an issue. It is the Goverment supporting a religion as legitimate.

Perhaps if you actually read what you are talking about, it would make more sense?
 
star2589 said:
how does public funding make it wrong?
Because it supports its establishment uniquely as a legitimate religion. It makes it a Government-sanctioned religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom