George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
GarzaUK said:I will say that the average European knows more about the world beyond it's borders than the average American does.
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...
star2589 said:I think any well educated person ought to have some understanding of world history and world religions.
tryreading said:I agree with you if the class is comparative of all religions.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
tryreading said:When you start teaching new testament, that's Christian only.
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.
star2589 said:thats not necessarily true, but even supposing it is true, what is wrong with that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
star2589 said:how does public funding make it wrong?
tryreading said:There shouldn't be an establishment of monotheism either.
tryreading said:teaching the importance of one religion in public schools with public money and with instruction from a government employee
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Because it supports its establishment uniquely as a legitimate religion. It makes it a Government-sanctioned religion.star2589 said:how does public funding make it wrong?
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?