If you could vote to allow religion to be taught in public schools, would you do it? Consider the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. If you vote yes, this means that your child would be exposed to Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Paganism, and others. Would this be good exposure for them, or under these circumstances would you rather religion not be taught in school?

Knowledge is power.

If a class was offered that explored different religions, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

No. Wholeheartedly, no. Religion should be taught at home and/or the church. It has no place (except for maybe humanities) in the school. Certainly not in a science classroom. I have taught, in a humanities class, students about the different religions, but we just talked about their basic belief structures and the history. But that was it. We didn't get into debates about who was right/wrong, why any one religion is better/worse, or whatever. Mostly I stuck to the religious art aspect of humanities to keep it safe.

I would vote No, then No again, and would continue to vote No as long as it would keep showing up on a ballot.

ETA: Another thing--it would just require teachers to become certified in yet another area...it's hard enough as it is!

Really, I'm not in favor of any religion being taught in schools. So, if I were a state legislator deciding this matter, I'd vote it down. I think religious teaching needs to be left to the church.

I suppose offering religious courses as an elective might be okay. I would be strongly opposed to requiring religious courses.
Read my 3rd sentence above. I think that sums up my views.

while i think it is important that children are exposed to different cultures, i don't think that the explicit study of religion should be required coursework in public schools. i wouldn't, however, be opposed to a highschool elective course on religion for those interested.

-M

No. Wholeheartedly, no. Religion should be taught at home and/or the church. It has no place (except for maybe humanities) in the school.

As your hubby would say, I concur!

I suppose an optional elective would be okay. Really though, isn't this why we have places of worship? Sunday School? Etc?

I see nothing wrong with an elective survey course studying the world's great religions, although it may be more appropriate for the college level. However if you mean a religion class where students are taught, and in effect indoctrinated in, only one religion, then no.

I can just see it now....some student complaining and sueing the district because his/her religion wasn't taught in the survey course.

Or that Christianity came before Buddhism in the textbook or that Hindu had 5 more pages dedicated to it than Judaism

I wouldn't mind seeing a "comparative religion" class taught in school, highlighting the general beliefs among different religions. However, as stated above, it would be tough to make everyone happy with the way it would be taught.

We shouldn't be teaching religion, but I'm not opposed to teaching about religion in a historical and cultural context. I don't think history and social studies courses can be complete without this.

You can't really talk about Indian culture and history without talking about Hinduism, and same goes for the middle east and north Africa with Islam.

And when it comes to science, you can teach Intelligent Design without putting any specific religion into it, and I think it MUST be taught alongside traditional evolution.

Studying religion as an anthropological or historical topic isn't the same as School prayer and while I object to the prayer, I have no issue with religion as a subject as long as it isn't "bible study for class credit.

The problem much of the time in attempting to teach history of religion or comparitive religion courses is that if the curriculum is not presented as : "Christianity is the only true religion and all other are false" then you can count on protests from people claiming they are being persecuted for being Christians.

I aggree that the school's job is to teach academics. It is my job as a parent to decide when and how to instruct my children in relgion or not in the method I choose to. This is part and parcel of religious freedom. Freedom to participate in religion implies the equal and opposing freedom of the individual to reject it.

Regardless, I remember when I went to high school, there being pre-football game prayers that included an alter call..."If anybody here has not yet accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal savior, come now lest your soul be damned to the fire pits of hell etc, etc, so forth and so on...."

I always wondered where I was supposed to go to answer the invitation. Was the referee prepared to say the "sinner's prayer" with me? Would people get mad at me for delaying the game in order for my eternal soul to be saved?

I've witnessed the exact same kind of thing at weddings and funerals. Just how narcisistic one would have to be to turn the focus of the event to themselves? Does the preacher really want such a thing to happen during a wedding or funeral, or is just part of the boilerplate service?

I'll toss a curveball at you.

I'll make the argument that we are actively teaching a religion in public schools, and it's called "secular humanism."

Its focus is to say that you should rely on yourself for your own direction; that you should endeavor to do those things that make you "feel good," and that there is really no ultimate notion of "wrong." If you do something that someone else considers to be "wrong," then they are "insensitive" and "intolerant." Nothing is ever actually your own fault; everyone is a victim of circumstance, therefore you never have to be burdened with anything like personal accountability. If anyone opposes you, just call them names and shout them down until they give up trying to offer an opposing point of view.

Humanism teaches that you shouldn't just pursue, but are essentialy entitled to anything you want, and that individual desires trump the rule of law, because ultimately the rule of law just persecutes the individual. You have an indefatigable right never to be offended by anything, and if you take offense, you are entitled to unlimited persecution of anyone offering such offense. Open debate under secular humanism is to be encouraged, provided everyone offers the same view on all topics - any contrarian view should be ridiculed as "narrow minded" and shot down, because such opposition is inherently "mean spirited."

Humanism sports its inspirational quotes from what might be identified as the contemporary "cultural and spiritual cognoscenti" such as Maya Angelou, Oprah, Lenin, Lennon, (sometimes even Marx), and offers as its forum for debate arenas like "The View," and offers as its scientific experts a vast array of movie and TV stars to ensure everyone "feels good" about what is imposed on others. Its hymns are songs like "Imagine."

Extreme perspective? Perhaps. But just because there's no daily, weekly, or other periodic meeting place that serves as a place of worship, or a single book that serves as a theological core, doesn't mean it isn't a religion...

-soonerdave

Sooner, thanks for the curveball! However, secular humanism is not a religion, nor is it taught in schools. As to the original question, I believe that comparative religion should most certainly be taught from elementary on up. Perhaps a citizenry that has an understanding of how the rest of the world thinks and worships would be more open minded and tolerant. Contempt prior to investigation is the most sincere form of ignorance.

i would argue that a religion has a set of codified beliefs and ritual practices. religions also incorporate some form of a belief in the supernatural and divine. since secular humanism really doesn't have those aspects, i'd argue that it's more of a philosophy than a religion. interesting curveball, though. -M

I believe that comparative religion should most certainly be taught from elementary on up. Perhaps a citizenry that has an understanding of how the rest of the world thinks and worships would be more open minded and tolerant.

:yeahthat:

I'll toss a curveball at you.

I'll make the argument that we are actively teaching a religion in public schools, and it's called "secular humanism."

Its focus is to say that you should rely on yourself for your own direction; that you should endeavor to do those things that make you "feel good," and that there is really no ultimate notion of "wrong." If you do something that someone else considers to be "wrong," then they are "insensitive" and "intolerant." Nothing is ever actually your own fault; everyone is a victim of circumstance, therefore you never have to be burdened with anything like personal accountability. If anyone opposes you, just call them names and shout them down until they give up trying to offer an opposing point of view.

Humanism teaches that you shouldn't just pursue, but are essentialy entitled to anything you want, and that individual desires trump the rule of law, because ultimately the rule of law just persecutes the individual. You have an indefatigable right never to be offended by anything, and if you take offense, you are entitled to unlimited persecution of anyone offering such offense. Open debate under secular humanism is to be encouraged, provided everyone offers the same view on all topics - any contrarian view should be ridiculed as "narrow minded" and shot down, because such opposition is inherently "mean spirited."

Humanism sports its inspirational quotes from what might be identified as the contemporary "cultural and spiritual cognoscenti" such as Maya Angelou, Oprah, Lenin, Lennon, (sometimes even Marx), and offers as its forum for debate arenas like "The View," and offers as its scientific experts a vast array of movie and TV stars to ensure everyone "feels good" about what is imposed on others. Its hymns are songs like "Imagine."

Extreme perspective? Perhaps. But just because there's no daily, weekly, or other periodic meeting place that serves as a place of worship, or a single book that serves as a theological core, doesn't mean it isn't a religion...

-soonerdave

That's a very interesting post. You know, what you described above is a very western hemisphere, if not American phenomenon. Many cultures that are decidedly non-religious, such as the Chinese, still teach about the greater good of serving your country and fellow man, and how they are one part of a larger whole. By no means is China a role model of any sort, but it is interesting to me that our culture, founded by puritans, has somehow produced secular humanism in its current form.

Secular Humanism is taught in the public schools. Other religions should be studied and examined.

There are just as many varieties of Secular Humanists as there are Christians as there are anything else. Some even have weekly Sunday meetings. Of course most Secular Humanists will maintain that their viewpoint is NOT a religion because that would be detrimental to their monopoly in the classroom.

while some humanist groups have sunday meetings, these groups are predominantly religious humanist rather than secular humanist. while a secular humanist group could enjoy tax exempt status and therefore fall under the legal definition of a religion, i would say that it has been made clear in this thread that secular humanism does not fit the socialogical definition of a religion.

-M

would say that it has been made clear in this thread that secular humanism does not fit the socialogical definition of a religion.

Hmmm..I'm not sure it's been made clear, and perhaps that's what makes the point. Just because it isn't "conventionally" recognized as a religion doesn't mean it isn't a religion in practice.

Secular Humanism defines a central morality absent any particular religious or denominational basis. Go down the halls of any contemporary public school and you'll see myriad "inspirational" quotes on various bulletin boards from numerous individuals - all of which are designed to inspire and guide.

Humanism isn't a religion because it's not conventionally organized? Go Google "council for secular humanism." It is an active organization that expressly rejects the "supernatural." That's precisely how contemporary public schools are chartered. You'll even see a definition of SH as "humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice." Sounds nice, but in so doing creates its own structure of morality that is purposely and expressly absent the "supernatural."

Of course, there will never be broad assent to the recognition of SH as a "religion." The point, however, is that to say if you believe religion generally to consist of guiding rules and principles for how a person and/or society should function in a moral context, SH smells and functions a great deal more like a religion than you might imagine.

The point is this: Don't think that a guiding set of life principles and ethics aren't being given to your kids just because "religion" has been chased out of the classroom.


-soonerdave

i don't know who argued that secular humanism wasn't organized, but it wasn't me. the statement i made (which hasn't been directly refuted) is that religions have codified (written down in an authoritative form) beliefs and ritual practices. secular humanism has neither of these. religions have some belief in the divine or supernatural... secular humanism does not aim to deal with theistic principles. so, the argument is made that secular humanism is a philosophy rather than a religion.

just because something serves as a guide for principles and ethics does not qualify it as a religion. our laws guide us on these things... is our legal system therefore a form of religion?

-M

the statement i made (which hasn't been directly refuted) is that religions have codified (written down in an authoritative form) beliefs and ritual practices. secular humanism has neither of these.

No, you didn't make that argument, I was speaking in general terms about how religions are viewed. But, in that vein:

Secular Humanism expressely refutes the participation of the supernatural. Is that not a belief?

Secular Humanism guides you to use your own feelings and instincts to determine what is right and wrong...isn't that a ritual practice?

I'm not meaning to debate a nitpick point, I just want to get people to understand that the absence of study of something formally called "religion" doesn't mean they're not getting a "form" of religion anyway.

I'll make my biases clear - I am a born-again Christian, and wish everyone would hear and receive the gospel of Christ. But I also know that I would not want a public school to sanction, for example, Mormonism, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientology, or <fill in the blank>. In that regard, I understand the "say nothing" concept. For those who are concerned about what kinds of philosophy are being taught in the schools, just understand that the specious absence of "religion" doesn't imply the absence of a unified direction of preferred personal behaviors and beliefs.

Hope that makes sense...somehow...I'm writing this in a rush, so it may be a bit fractured...apologies if that's the case.

-soonerdave

Soonerdave, one line in your post concerns me. It sounds like you are confusing teaching with sanctioning. Schools teach WWII history without sanctioning warfare, so theoretically they can teach Budhism, Hinduism or any other "ism" without sanctioning or endorsing a particular faith. Are you saying that ignorance of the world's major religions can in any way be construed as a positive?

I think there's a difference between teaching and teaching about when it comes to religion.

Good point. I'm not advocating evangelism of any sort in a public school environment, but I am in favor of educating our youth concerning the existance and basic principals of the worlds major faiths.

I know in 7th grade geography/history we did a whole unit on the middle east that included a thorough overview of the Islamic faith, and I appreciate knowing these things. I also got a liberal arts college education that included comparitive civilization and was very helpful for being a well-rounded, educated person.

Secular humanism IS NOT taught in public schools.

For that matter, I don't beleave it is commonly taught in college either.

Here's proof: Find an example of ONE public school n Oklahoma or anywhere else in the US that teaches even one course called "SECULAR HUMANISM."

If you find one, I will eat my shoe.

But, what I think is meant here by "teaching" secular humanism is that if we teach religion, then we are teaching religion and if we do not teach religion, then it is also teaching religion.

This is a pretty interesting example of circular logic seem to me.

But this isn't really about teaching secular humanism. It's really about teaching creationism. The whole concept that our schools "teach secular humanism" is one that has been being promoted by Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell et. al. for the past 20 years because schools insist on teaching science instead of the bible stories.

Intelligent Design is science.

Jbrown, may you be touched by his noodly appendage.

Stole this from an article, but I agree wholeheartedly

‘Death of science'

After examining ID's two main arguments, the answers to the original questions — what does ID offer? And what can ID explain that evolution can't? — is not much and nothing, leading scientists say.

"The most basic problem [with ID] is that it's utterly boring," said William Provine, a science historian at Cornell University in New York. "Everything that's complicated or interesting about biology has a very simple explanation: ID did it."

Evolution was and still is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity.

ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity — a Supreme Being — and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all, scientists say. They're more like last resorts. And, scientists argue, there is a danger in pretending that ID belongs next to evolution in textbooks.

"It doesn't add anything to science to introduce the idea that God did it," Provine told LiveScience. Intelligent design "would become the death of science if it became a part of science."

That's gross generalization by liberal scientists who have an agenda.

The Privileged Planet (http://www.privilegedplanet.com/)

There are too many coincidences for the creation of the solar system to have just happened.

Fine and all wanting to try and figure our purpose in life and why we are here....I completely understand people reaching out to religion for that reason...But until there is some actual scientific evidence then it should be excluded from public schools

I would say 99% of all kids born into a Christian family are getting taught the ID story by their parents and their church anyway...If the kids go against that I suspect many pull them out and home school them or put them in private Christian schools

No, most Christian kids are being taught stringent Creationism.

ID is completely different, and asserts no religion. It could be aliens for crying out loud.

It's an alternative explanation that solves the problem of the Big Bang being completely unscientific.

No amount of spin by Christians will make it anything less than trying to assert their religion into public school teachings...Get that in and kids will be making arks in art class in no time

There are plenty of non-Christian scientists that are backing ID.

Fine and all wanting to try and figure our purpose in life and why we are here....I completely understand people reaching out to religion for that reason...But until there is some actual scientific evidence then it should be excluded from public schools

I would say 99&#37; of all kids born into a Christian family are getting taught the ID story by their parents and their church anyway...If the kids go against that I suspect many pull them out

Really the scientific evidence backing up evolution is pretty flimsy as well. The fossil record is nowhere close to being complete and probably never will be.

...Get that in and kids will be making arks in art class in no time

That statement actually shows ignorance in re: to the beliefs of Christianity.

And if it wasn't for Noah building an ark, you wouldn't be here today.

Easy, if you actually read the book The Privileged Planet, you would see that it's not a bunch of mythological mumbo jumbo, nor is it simply ignoring the complex stuff by saying "God" did it.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics conflicts with the Theory of Evolution.

"The entropy of an isolated system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system) not in equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium) will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium"

--Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius

The Second Law of Thermodynamics conflicts with the Theory of Evolution.

"The entropy of an isolated system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system) not in equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium) will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium"

--Rudolf Julius Emanuel Clausius

:yeahthat:

That statement actually shows ignorance in re: to the beliefs of Christianity.

And if it wasn't for Noah building an ark, you wouldn't be here today.

OK if you say so...Remember that story made me laugh as a 10 yr old..Seems completely reasonable he fit in 2 of all species in a boat

In other words, everything is constantly moving outward. Without an external force, gases and dust would not collect together in order to explode and create the universe

Was the ark big enough to hold the number of animals required?

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.
The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.
Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?
According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/undersea1.jpg (http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/wp-vs.html) God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured. (Scene from The World that Perished (http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/wp-vs.html), a Christian motion picture about the Flood)

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.
How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/wpv-ark3.jpg (http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/wp-vs.html) But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur (http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-ark1.html) or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37&#37; of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

Gee...I always thought it was an allegory. Boy do I feel stupid!

Gee...I always thought it was an allegory. Boy do I feel stupid!

Thanks for admitting your ignorance.

Cause of course the ark story just reeks of sensibility and common sense....Almost as much as the whale story

Funny you can say that, but you have nothing to back up your statement, as to why the ark story isn't true. All you can say is that it's not sensible. I can make silly claims all day, especially if I don't have to support my statements with fact.

Thanks for admitting your ignorance.


Oooohhh...I see we aced "Arrogance 101" in med school! Congrats!

Not sensible to humans, maybe.

Oooohhh...I see we aced "Arrogance 101" in med school! Congrats!

I'm still waiting for you to back up your viewpoints with facts. So far, you've shown nothing.

You should see what's going on in the Jesus Camp thread Patrick.

The atheists are really off their game today.

You should see what's going on in the Jesus Camp thread Patrick.

The atheists are really off their game today.
:LolLolLol

I'm still waiting for you to back up your viewpoints with facts. So far, you've shown nothing.

I believe that christianity is a belief system based on a story written by men. You believe that the Bible is the word of God. Neither position is provable by scientific methods, therefore both are viable. What I take issue with is your utter lack of respect for beliefs different from yours.

Where did you see lack of respect?

Easy called the Bible senseless.

I believe that christianity is a belief system based on a story written by men. You believe that the Bible is the word of God. Neither position is provable by scientific methods, therefore both are viable. What I take issue with is your utter lack of respect for beliefs different from yours.

Uhh, I respect your right to have a different opinion.

Even if you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, what's wrong with a historical story written by men? All of history is essentially a story written by men. Does that mean we shouldn't believe it? Was George Washington really a fake? What about Alexander the Great? Hey, is there really any way to prove that those stories are real? Yet, we still accept them as fact, right?

Patrick, you misquoted me. I said "story" not "historical". Story as in "novel". I do not doubt that there may be some history tucked away in there, but I cannot accept the whole thing as literal fact.
jbrown, I'm not responsible for easy180, and frankly, you Christian types can be a tad nasty when someone disagrees with you. No offense intended, just my perception. Anyhoo, I'm bowing out for a weekend of godless, pagan liberal debauchery. You guys have a great weekend too, and we'll swap stories Tuesday!

I never said it was all literal fact. For example, Genesis is poetry and I don't think there was a literal 7-day creation.

Patrick, you misquoted me. I said "story" not "historical". Story as in "novel". I do not doubt that there may be some history tucked away in there, but I cannot accept the whole thing as literal fact.
jbrown, I'm not responsible for easy180, and frankly, you Christian types can be a tad nasty when someone disagrees with you. No offense intended, just my perception. Anyhoo, I'm bowing out for a weekend of godless, pagan liberal debauchery. You guys have a great weekend too, and we'll swap stories Tuesday!

Story. There are also stories about the Roman Empire, Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492 (hey, that rhymes!!), Martin Luther's reformation movement, Abraham Lincoln fighting in the civil war, etc. Whose to say that they're literal fact? There's no one alive today from back then to prove that those stories are factual. They could've all been made up, just like the Bible, right?

So we're not supposed to question the Bible because now we're supposed to suspect that all history, even recent history (Lincoln was only a couple hundred years ago) is all falsified?