Should Alternate Religions Be Taught In Schools?

[earthworm]

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.

As a separate class on the worlds religions, this should be a part of social studies for high schoolers.

This ,as presented by the originator of this thread, has little to do with Creation or Christianity..Our students should know about other religions as they are so intertwined with other people on this planet...
Thus, Garza has a good item which deserves consideration, but not all the twisting and spinning that has occurred.

 

[steen]

if I tell you that 85% of americans are christians, or that christians believe in a trinity, or that even though our calender is based on the christian belief on the date of jesus's birth, scholars actually believe his year of birth is closer to 6ad, have I pushed the supernatural?

Well, the concept of the trinity is supernatural. The concept surrounding the claims about Jesus' birth is supernatural, so yes you have. You have also exclusively pushed one religion, Christianity, as the norm, which is flagrantly illegal as well.

So there are lost of problems with your claim, yes. Which indeed the US Supreme Court has agreed with me about time after time. Your sophistry and moral outrage over not being able to push Christianity on the nation will not change this, so I suggest you drop the attempt at arguing that you are "right" through what now is pure sophistry.

I ignored it because I agree that embodying a particular religious tenent is unconstitutional. I disagree that teaching a class on christianity is embodying a particular religious tenet.

It shows and thus promotes awareness of one single religion only. It fails the "lemon test" as was described in my link to various US Supreme Court cases. Perhaps you should have paid attention to the REALITY of these rather than retreating into your world of sophist reasoning.

By the way, did you know that you are a rock? Sophistry tells us this as a fact, so it is pointless for you to claim that you are not. After all:

You can't fly. A rock can't fly. A bird can fly. You are not a bird. therefore, it is absolutely and unequivocally proved through solid sophistry that you are a rock.

Well, golly gee, wasn't that fun and meaningful?

Are we done with such crap by now and are you ready to deal with reality instead?

teaching it in a science classroom is a very different context. we study science to learn about the natural world. teaching that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution is very blatantly pushing creationism, because the scientific community simply disagrees.

Nope. The Scientific community disagrees because it has no evidence that stands up to the Scientific Method.

And the US Supreme Court didn't rule about its scientific validity, but rather found that it violated the Establishment Clause by being the teaching of religion.

if the scientific community also thought that creationism was a valid scientific theory, then there would be no problem with teaching it in a science classroom.

Well, yes there would be, because it would violate the Establishment clause. Listen, I linked to the case, and I went through the parts of the case where this was clarified. Didn't you F#%&*ing read it? it is F#%&*ing insulting when you ignore factual documentation and repeats the same claims as has already been proved false. Are you going to CONTINUE being so F#%&*ing dishonest?

there's a big difference between teaching in a science classroom that "this is evolution, and this is the evidence for it. this is currently the best theory for how life evolves. another theory is creationism that states that we were all created by a higher being who possibly guided evolution" and teaching in a science classroom "this is evolution, and this is the evidence for it. this is currently the best theory for how life evolves" and teaching in a class about christianity "christians believe that we were created by God, rather than by purely natural processes."

Still irrelevant. That is NOT what that case was decided on. I clarified and pointed out where this was about religion not being allowed, and you continue to deny it. You are now outright dishonest.

this has led to today's great controvery over the teaching of evolution in public schools and teaching the 'intellegent design' theory which was created by christians that states that god started and guided the process"

the former establishes a religious tenet. the latter does not.

teaching creationism in any form is to teach religion, and THAT is what is illegal.

im not claiming that it doesnt exist. im claiming that it isnt applicable.

And your claims have already been proved wrong by the evidence I provided PREVIOUSLY!!! Go F#%&*ing read it this time.

We are done here. Until you drop the sophist nonsense that has already been proved false, I have nothing more to say to you. You are now flat-out dishonest. If you disagree, start proving the US Supreme Court rulings wrong, why don't you. I am done playing with your dishonest arguments.

 

[steen]

But the creationism theory should be mentioned in science class because there is evidence supporting it.

False. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. Your abysmal lack of knowledge of the Scientific Method is what is expected from creationists.

 

[steen]

...And, your evidence that we came from monkeys?

Is there a point to this remark other than demonstrating ignorance of the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, the concept of the trinity is supernatural. The concept surrounding the claims about Jesus' birth is supernatural, so yes you have. You have also exclusively pushed one religion, Christianity, as the norm, which is flagrantly illegal as well.

yes, the concept of the trinity and jesus's birth is supernatural. I'm not claiming that teachings students: "there is a trinity, and jesus's birth was miraculus," is legal. I'm claiming that teaching students "christians believe in a trinity and they believe that jesus's birth was miraculus" is legal. the latter is just plain a fact, there is nothing supernatural about it.

It shows and thus promotes awareness of one single religion only. It fails the "lemon test" as was described in my link to various US Supreme Court cases. Perhaps you should have paid attention to the REALITY of these rather than retreating into your world of sophist reasoning.

I read the cases, and I saw the thing about the lemon test. the reason I didnt meantion it first, was because teaching a class does past the lemon test. after you brought it up, I explained how it passed:

teaching a class about christianity for the sake of teaching students about an important part of our history and our culture is a secular purpose.

teaching it from a nuetral perspective niether advances nor inhibits religion.

teaching it in a public school is not an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

perhaps we should focus the debate on whether it passes the lemon test? the rest of what we've been arguing doesnt matter until we establish that.

By the way, did you know that you are a rock? Sophistry tells us this as a fact, so it is pointless for you to claim that you are not. After all:

You can't fly. A rock can't fly. A bird can fly. You are not a bird. therefore, it is absolutely and unequivocally proved through solid sophistry that you are a rock.

Well, golly gee, wasn't that fun and meaningful?

Are we done with such crap by now and are you ready to deal with reality instead?

If this debate is going to degrade into attaching eachother, instead of the the points being debated, I won't participate any further. I can find other people to debate with.

Nope. The Scientific community disagrees because it has no evidence that stands up to the Scientific Method.

Im not sure what your disagreement is. you're completely right, the scientific community disagree's because the evedence doesnt stand up to the scientific method. I was implying that if the scientific community endorsed creationism, it would be because it stood up the the scientific method, thus making it science rather than religion. perhaps that wasnt clear?

Well, yes there would be, because it would violate the Establishment clause. Listen, I linked to the case, and I went through the parts of the case where this was clarified. Didn't you F#%&*ing read it? it is F#%&*ing insulting when you ignore factual documentation and repeats the same claims as has already been proved false. Are you going to CONTINUE being so F#%&*ing dishonest?

I read the links, and explained to you how they do not apply. claiming that i didnt read them, or that im ignoring factual information, or that I am being dishonest, even after I explained to you how all those links to not apply, is insulting.

if you want to continue debating the applicability of the links you provided thats fine, but I'm not going to continue debating if its going to degrade to insults.

Still irrelevant. That is NOT what that case was decided on. I clarified and pointed out where this was about religion not being allowed, and you continue to deny it. You are now outright dishonest.

I refuted all your points, it has nothing to do with denial. I could just as easily claim that you've been denying all the points i've made, and all the refutals of you're own.

And your claims have already been proved wrong by the evidence I provided PREVIOUSLY!!! Go F#%&*ing read it this time.

they havent been proven, because I refuted all your points. you can make counter arugments to mine, or insult me. but i wont continue debating if you choose the latter.

We are done here. Until you drop the sophist nonsense that has already been proved false, I have nothing more to say to you. You are now flat-out dishonest. If you disagree, start proving the US Supreme Court rulings wrong, why don't you. I am done playing with your dishonest arguments.

I've demonstrated multiple times how the US supreme rulings didnt apply, and have recieved more insults and accusations of sophestry than counter arguments.

if we're going to continue debating this, I recomend we focus on whether or not a religion class would passes the lemon test.

 

[tryreading]

there is nothing unconstitution about teaching "christianity is the predoominant religion in the united states with x% of the country being followers." thats simply teaching a fact, not pushing the religion itself.



when has this issue ever gone to court before? I know that other things have, such as school vouchers to private religious schools, and school prayer or what not, but when has this particular issue gone to court?



teaching about a religion from a nuetral perspective is not pushing it anymore than teaching about communism is pushing communism.

You are unreachable.

 

[jfuh]

I voted no, because I think no religion should be taught at all. That is something reserved for sunday school.
However I do feel that the history of religions and the effect of religions on culture and history should most deffinetely be taught.

 

[FallingPianos]

You are unreachable.

that may be true. another possibility is that I'm right and that you're unreachable. or perhaps we're both wrong and both unreachable, or both reachable but still both wrong.

either way, I see no point in making accusations instead of debating the actual issue.

 

[FallingPianos]

However I do feel that the history of religions and the effect of religions on culture and history should most deffinetely be taught.

how would this be done? to me it seems pretty impossible without teaching anything about the religion itself.

 

[jfuh]

how would this be done? to me it seems pretty impossible without teaching anything about the religion itself.

The Crusades, that's religous history. The begining of the catholic church. How christianity overtook paganism as the dominent religion in Europe. That's all religious history, you needn't preach.

 

[FallingPianos]

The Crusades, that's religous history. The begining of the catholic church. How christianity overtook paganism as the dominent religion in Europe. That's all religious history, you needn't preach.

I'm not advocating preaching by any means. but I think that its impossible to teach those things, without also teaching a bit about christianity itself. how does one teach how christianity overtook paganism, without actually teaching the difference between christianity and paganism? I dont think its possible to seperate teaching the history of a religion, without also teaching about the religion itself.

 

[jfuh]

I'm not advocating preaching by any means. but I think that its impossible to teach those things, without also teaching a bit about christianity itself. how does one teach how christianity overtook paganism, without actually teaching the difference between christianity and paganism? I dont think its possible to seperate teaching the history of a religion, without also teaching about the religion itself.

Dec. 7th 1941 the Nation of Japan launched an unprovoked sneak attack on the US naval port at Honolulu Hawaii.

Just like that, you don't need to learn anything about what constitutes to being Japanese or American, just that such an even happened. Then there's the background and aftermath of this act and how it changed history, none of which would require the "preaching" of how to be any particular citizen, just simply two groups going at it.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I'm not advocating preaching by any means. but I think that its impossible to teach those things, without also teaching a bit about christianity itself. how does one teach how christianity overtook paganism, without actually teaching the difference between christianity and paganism? I dont think its possible to seperate teaching the history of a religion, without also teaching about the religion itself.

I agree. Context is everything. For example, I teach a unit on Baroque music, and it's imperative to add the fact that Bach and most other composers of the era were employed by the church. Vivaldi was a priest. Certain intervals were forbidden because it was thought that they were unholy. You can't give a choir a good education without exposing them to sacred music, since it is such a large part of the repertoire.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm not advocating preaching by any means. but I think that its impossible to teach those things, without also teaching a bit about christianity itself. how does one teach how christianity overtook paganism, without actually teaching the difference between christianity and paganism? I dont think its possible to seperate teaching the history of a religion, without also teaching about the religion itself.

True enough. One can't even begin to understand history without at least a basic understanding of the cultural superstitions in effect. I'd love to see someone explain the Reformation without explaining the religions involved. Why did the Pilgrims come to America? Explain why the Holocaust happened without explaining the religious difference between Jews and the rest of Europe. Why did those animals murder 3000 people on September 11th?

Some minimum level of understanding of the various religions is absolutely essential to understanding history.

 

[Rosalie]

Who the hell voted no!? Why should Christianity be taught, and not alternatives?

 

[rathi]

Knowledge of religion is a good idea for a historical or literary context. Many american books have biblical allusion that require knowledge of the bible to understand. Just teach the bible, Qu'ran or torah the same way you teach greek mythology.

 

[FallingPianos]

Who the hell voted no!? Why should Christianity be taught, and not alternatives?

it depends on the context. in western history, christianity is the only highly relevant religion. in world history, all of the major religions are relevant.