Not no, Ell NO! Give 10% to the church and they still want more? Let the church fund religious training. It isn't about morals, it's about greed! Greed and lust for power.
While some of this is true to some extent, by all means the bolded part is not. While german schools arent up beef anymore either (PISA anyone), your HS was a joke (it was at least in Madison county, Ky, 1992). Granted when I went to school (in communist East Germany) things were tougher in a certain sense - teachers were actually persons to be respected or else...
. But anyhow we were able to be taught: german, math, biology, geography, history, art, music, PE, physics, chemistry, (craftsmanship - doesnt exsist anymore I guess), english, russian, (religion/ethics/social studies - in the East it was a propaganda subject with a name I am not able to translate: something like citizen studies) at the same time(+astronomy in 10th). Some of these subjects started in earlier years some in later years.However, by grade 7 all of them were on the curiculum and the only electivity was: either english or french.Are you arguing Kids are growing dumber nowadays ?
Where have you been? They shut down Science classes already and replaced with Religion in many Red State schools. That has what has sparked the debates.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
First, I think an entire course is not a good idea. It's too much time out of an already busy schedule. I think it's a good idea to have a block of time in social studies or whatever they are calling it these days to give a broad overview of worlds major religions.
Second, once again people have validated my reasons for not coming here much these days. Too many of you don't think.
This would NOT be a Constitutional issue for all your hatred of religion.
The Constitution does not ban the DISCUSSION of religions, it merely forbids the ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE RELIGION, which has been interpreted as state ENDORSEMENT.
"Religion classes" in this context isn't indoctrination, it's discussing a major motivator in the world past, present and future.
Again, a whole course is too much, but only because it's not needed.
Dammit, start thinking people.
I'm out of this useless pit once again.
Second, once again people have validated my reasons for not coming here much these days. Too many of you don't think.
This would NOT be a Constitutional issue for all your hatred of religion.
The Constitution does not ban the DISCUSSION of religions, it merely forbids the ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE RELIGION, which has been interpreted as state ENDORSEMENT.
"Religion classes" in this context isn't indoctrination, it's discussing a major motivator in the world past, present and future.
Again, a whole course is too much, but only because it's not needed.
Dammit, start thinking people.
I'm out of this useless pit once again.
I beleive in educational choice.
If you beleive in secular humanism, there should be a school for you. Likewise, if you beleive in God, there should be a school for you too.
Of course, the leftists are opposed to educational choice because they're using the public schools to futher their agenda.
If you beleive in secular humanism, there should be a school for you. Likewise, if you beleive in God, there should be a school for you too.
Of course, the leftists are opposed to educational choice because they're using the public schools to futher their agenda.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Yeah it's one big fscking conspiracy:roll:
I bet that the vast majority of Public School teachers and Administrators are Christians since the vast majority of Americans are Christians though they aren't extremists like you. They believe rightfully so that Religion should be taught in Church, Synagogues and Mosques not in public schools.
I thought that America was about having freedom of choice.
It's funny how the liberals talk about how the "fundamentalists" are trying to force their views, when clearly it's the other way around.
Thankfully. I can afford to pay for the public schools AND the tuition at my kids' religious school. A lot of parents don't have that luxury
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
You do have the freedom of choice. You can choose to believe what you want too, even that there is a conspiracy. That doesn't make it true but you can believe it and nobody will do anything to stop you from believing it .
What's even funnier is how the Fundies label those who don't believe that Religion should be taught in school "Liberals"
Heres one for you. I believe that if you send your kids to a private schoool you shouldn't have to pay taxes that support public schools just like I believe that people who do not have any children shouldn't have to pay taxes to support public schools.
Under your system, the public school system would collapse. Not that I think that's a bad thing.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Exactly - I think a comparitive religions course is a particularly good idea. THere was one offered at my high school, and it was one of the better courses I've ever taken. Learning about various religions is not the same as indoctrination; you can't very well be indoctrinated into 5 or 6 religions all at once!
I don't have a problem with teaching classes that STUDY religions - i.e. World Religions, Comparative Religion, Intro to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.
However, these should be objective, social science classes. At no time should a school start teaching religious lessons - that's clear constitutional violation.
Frankly, I don't think children are at a mental level to learn this stuff in public school anyway. I think it's reserved for higher education because people aren't ready to study religion objectively until that point.
However, these should be objective, social science classes. At no time should a school start teaching religious lessons - that's clear constitutional violation.
Frankly, I don't think children are at a mental level to learn this stuff in public school anyway. I think it's reserved for higher education because people aren't ready to study religion objectively until that point.
Just because a school is required to offer a class does not mean a student is required to take it.
There is a good class that covers religion in high schools already. They call it "history." In my high school, we studied religions as they were involved in other subjects. If you're studying the crusades, understanding some basic christianity has a little bearing. If you're studying Greek/Roman history, their religion is important as well.
I can't believe some of you want to act like religion doesn't exist. Teaching it as it applies to history is in no way endorsing religion.
No.... nor do i see sex education the responsibility of the school.
morality is solely the responsibility of the parent. now, you say that parents aren't taking that responsibility seriously..... so be it. there are other aspects of life that are being taken lightly, it's the nature of the human condition.
teaching the existence of religion (i.e. world religion courses) is another story. the existence of religion is a fact. each individual religion must be considered opinionated and thus has no business in school.
morality is solely the responsibility of the parent. now, you say that parents aren't taking that responsibility seriously..... so be it. there are other aspects of life that are being taken lightly, it's the nature of the human condition.
teaching the existence of religion (i.e. world religion courses) is another story. the existence of religion is a fact. each individual religion must be considered opinionated and thus has no business in school.
If I understand your posit:
High schools are required to teach science--so then--they should be required to teach religious studies.
It doesn't seem to follow IMHO.
But I see nothing wrong with teaching religious studies at this level--as long as the course is accurately and properly labeled.
The course should not overlap with science--since the scientific method, object evidence, and epistemology are not the methods of operation in religious philosophy, which is a metaphysical human phenomena.
The obvious potential error here would be the temptation by some with political agendas to couch such religious study courses as "competing" or "balancing", or "alternatives" to science, and thus corrupt the educational process.
There is no such thing as Evolution or Science.
Scientists are a dying breed, to be replaced with ministers.
3-30-2005 Censorship of IMAX Films Threatens Integrity of Science, Leader Says
The leader of the world's largest organization of scientists said the suppression of some IMAX films because they run counter to religion threatens the integrity of science and public education.
The letter prompted by recent reports that Imax theaters in at least a dozen U.S. cities have declined to show films that endorse the science of evolution.
Some IMAX theatres have refused to show movies that mention evolution or the Big Bang because the ideas contradict the Bible.
I don't supose that I would object to an elective course like this. I don't see any particular value in it, but I didn't see it in taking French or Latin back in the day either.
I would think that it would be fundamentalists of every stripe and persuasion who would object most strenuously. It seems that the narrower the belief system, the less tolorantance there is for any information considered to be contradictory.
I would think that it would be fundamentalists of every stripe and persuasion who would object most strenuously. It seems that the narrower the belief system, the less tolorantance there is for any information considered to be contradictory.
I don't see how a comparative religions class is establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.
A comparative religions class is an excellent idea, though I suspect schools would experience at least as many objections to such as a class as they do to modern biology classes.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,822
- 6,366
- 126
Yup, that's reasonable. In North America(Canada and USA) this should be mandatory simply for the fact that we have very diverse Societies and any kind of basic understanding of others benefits all. Such a course would have to be(mainly due to time constraints) a basic overview of each and not detailed enough to go into every detail.
Ok, if we're going to force the schools to teach "about" religion, can we force the churches to teach science (real science, not sci-fi).
OTOH, Lil Christian Jimmy might find out he prefers a different religion... Since the Christians have the most to loose (having the biggest market share), I'ld find it odd that they would back a plan to expose thier kids to other religions. Assuming other religions are part of the package.
Oh - bad idea.
OTOH, Lil Christian Jimmy might find out he prefers a different religion... Since the Christians have the most to loose (having the biggest market share), I'ld find it odd that they would back a plan to expose thier kids to other religions. Assuming other religions are part of the package.
Oh - bad idea.
I went to private Christian schools K-12 and grew up in a very conservative part of a northern blue state. In my schooling we had a class in religion each year. In high school (10-12) we had Church History (actually Christian/Protestant/Calvinist/Dutch church history) in 10th grade, Reformed Doctrine (a comparative discussion of Calvinist vs. other reformed demoninations, Reformed vs. Catholic, and Christian vs. other religions including talk about agnostics and atheists) in 11th grade and Christian Ethics (a discussion of how we, as Calvinists, should feel about world events) in 12th grade. As you might expect, these were all required classes.
That said, having a class that provides a high level look at several major religions might be OK if, and only if:
- They covered at least the top 10 major religions, including agnosticism and atheism.
- They spent equal time on each of the religions covered
- They brought in truly knowledgeable people for each one who could honestly answer questions that might come of and weren't covered in the boiler plate class materials.
- They didn't make any recommendations as to which ones were better, only provide cold hard facts
- They either made it an elective or allowed parents to opt their children out
- They didn't raise property taxes to cover the cost of the additional curriculum
The problem I see here is the slippery slope as to how to present the information. I look the the drive to teach sex education as an example of how things can get out of hand. First it was that in order to lower the rates of teenage pregnancy and the spread of venereal disease, kids needed to know this stuff. And most people were able to agree that it was a good idea. Then, they had to start teaching that there were homosexuals in the community and that that was OK, which may very well help people understand and accept them better but has nothing to do with the impetus behind the original drive to have sex education. I feel this will happen with religion in the schools. First it will be pretty much in line with what I noted above (except the last one), and the majority of the people may even support it. But then it will morph into exactly what the no-sayers are saying, a vehicle to indoctrinate kids into one religion or another.
Oh, by the way, most people on this board would probably consider me to be a bleeding heart liberal, even with all of that indoctrination. I really never fit in with my peers and haven't lived in that part of that blue state since going off to a public University while most of my classmates went to the college run the same church as the schools we had gone to K-12.
That said, having a class that provides a high level look at several major religions might be OK if, and only if:
- They covered at least the top 10 major religions, including agnosticism and atheism.
- They spent equal time on each of the religions covered
- They brought in truly knowledgeable people for each one who could honestly answer questions that might come of and weren't covered in the boiler plate class materials.
- They didn't make any recommendations as to which ones were better, only provide cold hard facts
- They either made it an elective or allowed parents to opt their children out
- They didn't raise property taxes to cover the cost of the additional curriculum
The problem I see here is the slippery slope as to how to present the information. I look the the drive to teach sex education as an example of how things can get out of hand. First it was that in order to lower the rates of teenage pregnancy and the spread of venereal disease, kids needed to know this stuff. And most people were able to agree that it was a good idea. Then, they had to start teaching that there were homosexuals in the community and that that was OK, which may very well help people understand and accept them better but has nothing to do with the impetus behind the original drive to have sex education. I feel this will happen with religion in the schools. First it will be pretty much in line with what I noted above (except the last one), and the majority of the people may even support it. But then it will morph into exactly what the no-sayers are saying, a vehicle to indoctrinate kids into one religion or another.
Oh, by the way, most people on this board would probably consider me to be a bleeding heart liberal, even with all of that indoctrination. I really never fit in with my peers and haven't lived in that part of that blue state since going off to a public University while most of my classmates went to the college run the same church as the schools we had gone to K-12.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter