Discussions
Should the Bible be Kept Out of Public Schools?
Posted by lotusb • 8/28/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: jesus in schools
I got one of those annoying application requests on Facebook the other day from three of my cousins. The group they were requesting I join in called, "Keep Jesus in Our Schools" or something to that regard.
Now, as someone who has a strong interest in education, I am first of all opposed to the idea of intergrading religion into public school. I think there is no need to press the idea of God and Christ into the minds of young children unless their parents choose to do so.
However, I wanted know what others on BC thought of this?
User Comments
-
yes. i am sending my kids to school so they can learn how to write, read,etc... the rest is my responsibility. -
The Bible should at least be in a Library as well as the Koran, books on Wicca and other religions. It seems to me that you want your children to accept others and religion is part of that. This, however, doesn't mean you should preach in school. -
"I think there is no need to press the idea of God and Christ into the minds of young children unless their parents choose to do so."
Shouldn't it be the child's own will to accept God or choose religion?-
How it is their will if it's being taught to them in school?
-
What I meant was it should neither be taught in schools nor imposed by parents. One should make their own decisions and learn from them.
-
Well most children don't have the complex thought to process what religion means and even what God means until they are a little older. And frankly what religion a parent is should be taught to their child if they choose to do so. That's every parent's right. Not the right of a school.
-
Absolutely. Children should be allowed to discover about God and religion on their own. I understand that they need a little guidance in the direction when they are growing up but this guidance shouldn't become a push. When they are at the right age to understand things they should have right to choose what they want.
-
Trust me, I agree that everyone should be able to choose their own path. I don't personally beleive in religion, beyond method of meditation. But if my daughter wanted to be Jewish or Buddist, I would encourage her to study the religion and make that choice, even if she were only 13 or 14 years old or even younger.
-
>>But if my daughter wanted to be Jewish or Buddist, I would encourage >>her to study the religion and make that choice, even if she were only >>13 or 14 years old or even younger.
That's what parents are for
Support. If children need guidance and support parents should help them understanding and getting through it but imposition I don't think so
-
-
Seeing as most of the communities I have lived in are comprised of families practicing many different faiths, I think religion is best left out of public schools unless it can be assured that each religion is given equal "coverage."
I mean the fact that most schools right now have Easter and Christmas breaks but do not have breaks centered around religious holidays of other faiths is already biased.
Private schools can do whatever they want, but public schools should not teach religion unless it is a survey type class where all religions of the world are covered. One should not be promoted, however. IMO. -
I think there are schools designated for religous teachings and I don't think it should be incorporated in public school. I was raised Catholic so therefore my parents chose to send me to a Catholic School. Religion has taught me a lot of good things but on a bigger scale it is the cause of many wars today and in the past. Shame really. -
I think religion should be taught in public schools the way history and literature are taught. All creeds should be delved into and fairly represented. The focus should be on learning and not indoctrination. Those who object would have the option of sending their kids to private schools. -
“no religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced, inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination" -- Thomas Jefferson; Note to Elementary School Act (1817) -
Well, I do believe it should be in the school library, but I don't believe it has any place in a school curriculum-
Agreed.
-
but then how will they find out how the dinosaurs died in that flood?
-
-
I think there is nothing wrong with the idea if handled very well. I think children should have their minds opened to different paths of beliefs without feeling jaded or turn into bigots. The more the merrier. But hey math is hard enough so....-
I agree with Celtic. I think the exposure to diverse creeds and beliefs at an early age would prove beneficial.
-
It might be hard to include ALL religions in a curriculum that is already over filled. Most public schools can hardly afford music programs, why should religion beat that out, when it's something they will learn about anyway? I didn't go to a school with religious teaching, and I have found my own beleif system.
-
thanks np for seeing my point. bless you
-
-
That's why i said math is hard enough so i understand your concern and yes it doesn't apply to all. but it should be equal oppurtunity. if you put Christianity in school then you have to make sure you let there be other religions as well or nothing at all. that's what i mean But spirituality is also important for our well being so don't ever forget that.
-
Lotus-I know it would be an ideal situation and perhaps not really practical. But the hope is that it would encourage more tolerance and understanding.
-
-
Teaching of open-mindedness stems from at home - at least in my case. Although I had religous teaching at school and some of the passages I have read in the Bible are inspiring, my experience in a Catholic enviroment hasn't been good. Maybe it wasn't handled well and that my experience doesn't apply to all schools. There are always exceptions. Thank God for my father, who taught me that there are no bad religion and he encouraged me through books to understand other people's religion. He always taught me, take the teaching I feel comfortable with and as long as I don't do harm unto others, then I will be fine. And guess what... I am a Catholic raised practicing Buddhism. How cool is that?
-
That's my point, Funkee. By omitting comparative religious studies in school, open-mindedness is left to the parents and private religious institutions. And frankly, I think they do a pretty bad job.
-
-
"I am first of all opposed to the idea of intergrading religion into public schoo" I couldn't agree more, in my country there isn't any religion in schools, god bless Portugal(i'm not a beliver)
Religion can affect our judge, and for that reason, i think we should be free to choose to live with or without religion! -
I think *public* school is a totally inappropriate place for the bible.
Now, if parents choose to send their children to a religious school that's another matter--but not in public education.
It is so presumptuous to assume that everyone in the school is a Christian--or that they should be.-
Melinda-how about comparative religion? Would you have the same objection to that? Once again not as indoctrination, but the way history and literature are taught?
-
Well, if it is a *class* on comparative religion--in something like high school, which could be elective, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I took a religious studies class in college because I had an interest in it.
But I don't think it should be part of the curriculum that children have to take.
That's just my opinion though.
And I don't think most of the nuts are talking about a comparative religion class, do you?
-
-
I agree with you Mel. That is why people who push their belief system to other people should know that they are not the only ones who need to be heard. I grew up in a *public* school that pushed religion down my throat but I still became an individual thinker :)Because I wasn't really listening
-
I never had religion in school. My parents were both atheists and I never even went to church until I was in my twenties. Oh, I take that back! I went to church with a friend when I stayed overnight at her house when I was young. I fell asleep!
I think for some people, forced religion promotes thinking as an individual--you are lucky. Some people, though, are very easily manipulated!
-
-
I'm with NP and Celtic - it's an all or nothing issue in my opinion. Either teach a comparative religion course that includes as many religions as is reasonable, or exclude religious studies from school completely.
Besides - our teachers here can barely get through the basic curriculum they're required to get through, and they're doing a piss-poor job at it. I shudder at the thought of them giving them religious and moral guidance to the kids as well.
-
I'd much rather see a focus on art and music.
-
Anok-I do think "moral guidance" should be left to the parents. But I can't see the harm in studying comparative religion.
-
Melinda - agreed! They've already begun cutting art and music from the curriculum here - and it's a shame.
NP - indeed, I agree with a comparative religious course, when I said "religious and moral guidance" I was thinking of less academic religious courses, and more religious religion courses, if you get my drift.
However I was taking a dig at our local school systems here - I don't want those idiots trying to teach the kids what the religions are and who practices them, when they can't even master teaching the kids how to read.... -
I agree with Melinda on this...
There are plenty of people, like me, who don't beleive in religion AT ALL. It's a beleif structure...not fact, not a science. I would not want my child to be bombarded with religion unless, as stated by NP it is a comparitive religion class, AS an elective in graduate high school grades (11th or 12th) or college. Other than that, I think it's a huge violation. -
I disagree that a comparative religion course is a huge violation if it's not a high school elective.
It's no more bombarding than art class, or history class. Because comparative religion courses teach only facts and histories about religion. -
@Anok--that's happening all over the county--and it is very harmful to kids in the public school system.
Research has clearly shown that children who are introduced to and are involved with the arts do better in school all the way around and they are happier and better adjusted.
The arts are extremely important to a child's development. -
Public Schools are terribly UNEQUALLY funded. It's unAmerican!
-
-
Religion has no place in the public school system, at least when it comes to elementary schools. Perhaps in high schools it could be an elective course but it is not something that should be a mandatory lesson in school. If parents wish their children to learn about god then they can send their children to a private school. -
How about Religion studies as an optional extra-curruculum? At least you will be given a choice. But I doubt if kids will voluntarily take up Religion studies as an after school activity. Just an idea.
-
True, Agit-even in my small town the so-called "ghetto" and "rural" elementary schools have nowhere near the supplies and facilities as the ones the professor's children attend.
-
There are aspects of religion that is taught ANYWAY in school. For example. You can hardly teach a Humanities course without covering the arts. Art history includes archetecture, which includes of course the structures of the mid evil times, the Roman empire, Indian culture..etc. Most of these structures were built for or influenced by religion, and therefore those beleifs would be covered under that context. But to teach a child, the 10 comandments and ask the class why these comandments are important today ...and so on...is a violation.
-
Preach on sister!
"But to teach a child, the 10 comandments and ask the class why these comandments are important today ...and so on...is a violation."
I really agree with that statement.
-
-
I agree here with the majority here that religion should not be taught. But it IS a good idea to have religious books in the library. So kids have access to them since its likely they wouldn't have access to all of them at home. Children are curious and I was lucky enough to have access to read things in school. I felt educated enough to make the decision not to follow religion -
I think if someone wanted to form a christian club or something they should be able to do so, and they would probably bring bible for that. I think you can allow students to bring Bibles, as long as it does not interfere with classes.-
they do that already. It isn't part of cirriculum, though
-
-
In Mexico we haven't had religion in public schools since the beginning of the past century. Even when the country was 99% Catholic. Only private schools are allowed to teach about a specific religion. Now a lot of other Christian religions (non-Catholic) have their own schools and I think that is good. If a parent choses to send his/her kids to a private school were they preach his/her religion that's fine. But, public school should be religion-free. -
It's a false controversy. The Bible has never been banned from public schools. In fact, when I was in ninth grade, it was taught as literature, since it plays an important place in the cultural history of the western world.
When people complain about the Bible being kept out of schools, what they mean is that they're not allowed to impose Christianity on students.-
"since it plays an important place in the cultural history of the western world."
yes! That's how waterboarding came about...
-
-
Instead of straight away giving a child an exposure to Jesus or Christianity, it would be better and creative for the schools to induct in their curriculum an elective class, giving a brief insight into the world religions. This way a child will not be deprived of the knowledge about religions of the world and would be better off to choose his life later on. What the other members of BC think about this ??
I don't think it is right for it to be in the main curriculum of the school. It's also the parents responsibility, which way they want their children to grow up, to develop an ability to think and act or just follow blindly what is being taught in the schools. My idea is about making a child inculcate the abilities of a thinking person also when it comes to religion and other important issues of life. -
-
"...religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." -- Thomas Jefferson
www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html -
I heart Thomas Jefferson. He's my second-favorite US president. -
@kbrummell - What if the kids are American citizens but are of the Jewish or Muslim or Hindu faiths and so and so on?
Should they follow the teachings of "The Bible" and "Jesus"?
And the bible at our jobs????? C'mon now, get real!
Seriously now! -
@kbrummell - you seem to forget that not everyone believes jesus is the messiah. you also may not be aware that a large portion of the country (and world) does not include jesus in their religion at all...
how would you feel if schools tried to force your children to learn to worship, for example, Zeus? or the government decided that polytheism was going to be promoted? if that sounds absurd to you, imagine how teaching the bible in public school sounds to the faiths that cathy mentioned...
-
-
There is prayer everday in school when that teacher hands out a test or when that student is sitting in the principals office. I think it should be a choice in what they teach as far as science goes. That the student and parents should choose what class they go into the Bible way or the Evolution way. I home school my kids and they are Christian homeschooled. But my main reason for pulling them is not religon ( I am not religious and do not attend church but they do by their choice) My main reason for pulling them is the lack of brains in the current teaching staff in this state (I think it is most states) where they are now baby sitters and not teachers. I had my daughter in a public school after a few years at a private school. She had trouble with timed test. She knew her math but tell her she had 5 min to do so many problems and she freaked out. The teacher told me to take shaving cream and put it on a table and have her practice her facts. When another student acted out in class and parents went to the teacher she told them that it was not her place to correct that student it was his parents. Even though he messed up the class while they were learning. -
i like the idea mentioned above about a comparative religion class - IF it's an elective. i love learning ABOUT religion (history, etc.) even though i'm definitely agnostic. i would have loved an elective in high school that would have taught me a little bit about each of the major religions of the world.
however, the point of a public school is that it's supposed to be equal for everyone (even though this isn't always the case...) and "keeping jesus in our schools" totally contradicts equal education. not everyone in the world believes that jesus is their savior, and i think a lot of times christians in america forget that. if a parent wants their child's education to include bible study, there are other alternatives to including study in public schools. private school education, home education (like amybyrd mentioned), or even after school programs (like i attended when i was in elementary school)
public schools need to remain religion-neutral if america wants to remain as (moderately) tolerant as it currently is - adding bible study to public education is only going to increase prejudice against non-christian cultures, which would be a terrible thing. -
It's probably worth noting the many parts of the Bible are not child-appropriate
-
totally worth noting and absolutely true! especially the old testament...
-
-
Still, they force children to learn the bible!
-
I actually consider that a plus side. Death to movie ratings! Death to Suburbia! No more sheltering, please! -
ohhh-tayyyy...
-
-
If parents want their children to learn the bible they can send them to Sunday school. If a public school teaches The Theory of Evolution, then if the child is already over nine years old he or she should make their decission if they want to learn somthing that contradicts the bible or not.
Children should NOT be forced to follow their parents religion so blindly. -
religion has no place in a public school, though i do like LaurenM622's idea about schools having elective classes that teach the world's religions' histories. science should be taught as it is and should be left alone by the religious. "intelligent" design has no place in public schools. in my town, there's a strange public school called Jackson Christian school, and for the life of me i can't seem to figure out how it can be a public school, seeing as how it teaches Christianity. i'd like to know how this town gets away with that. a few of the other schools here, particularly the elementary schools, have teachers that will lead the kids in prayer before lunch, again, how the hell do they get away with that? -
In the seventh grade I took a required course called "Social Studies." Part of the curriculum of that course was to learn about different religions in the context of their societies. We started with Greek, Roman, and Scandinavian mythology and when we later moved on to contemporary societies and religions, each student was assigned a different religion and we were instructed to research and present an oral report.
In a matter of a couple of weeks the entire class learned, from the reports, about all of the major world religions...and many minor ones as well. In retrospect it was good to learn this at such a young age because as I met new students from other countries and cultures, I had some insights into their cultures and beliefs. It was good to learn it from my peers who studied the various faiths and presented them in a manner the rest of us kids could understand...and without proselytizing, as we were not reporting on our own faiths.
I think children should be taught about religion in school, but in such a way that it simply informs rather than indoctrinates. I also think keeping the Bible, Koran, Gita and other major religious texts in the school library is a good idea.
But I absolutely object to children being religiously indoctrinated in the public schools. If parents want their children indoctrinated in a particular religion or sect or splinter group or cult, they need to do that themselves...and they need to leave other people's children alone.-
bravo!
-
-
There are three fundamental influences on Western (European, English Colony & Western Hemisphere) civilization: the Greco-Roman, the Judeo-Christian, and the Scandinavian-Celtic. To understand the Judeo-Christian, you MUST read the Bible. If we do not teach the bible in school as a work of a literature, our children will not understand who they are as a people. It is not just another work of religion, but in fact a solid third of who we are as America. To understand our roots, we should teach the Bible, with a focus on the Old Testament, we should the Illiad and Aeneid and Greek Mythology, we should teach Norse Mythology and Beowulf, and we should teach the Founding Fathers. These are musts.
Also, there are few better books for illustrating and discussing primitive culture then the Torah.
Anyone who does not understand especially the Old Testament will not understand our society or where they come from. You can love it, you can hate it, you can rage against it, but you can't change where we came from, and if you try to push it under the rug, you will destroy us, and our children, with no root in themselves or anything else, will drift with every passing wind. I'm not saying we should teach children to be Christians, but I am saying that we should teach where this side of our society comes from. The people who inhabited this continent before us predicted we would be destroyed by our lack of roots, and if we continue in these reactionary ways, they will be right.-
You don't have to read the bible to understand Judeo-Christian societies...in fact, doing so would be confusing and counter productive, since those who call themselves "Christians" merely cherry pick the book for passages that support their existing beliefs. Christians are not homogeneous, nor are their societies, and their religions are only loosely based in the bible. Anybody who read the book and expected to find a society that adheres to its examples and teachings will be terribly confused or sorely disappointed!
-
Surely if you want the Bible taught to give a grounding on your routes you should teach the bible as a history lesson, not as gospel. If you must have the lessons to teach children about their roots, have the teachers be Atheist or from a different religion that isn't Christianity - as long as children aren't taught that what the Bible says is truth and all the others are false, I see no problem with it being taught. -
What's a Judeo-Christian society? The religions, the cultures, and the rituals are completely different.
> To understand the Judeo-Christian, you MUST read the Bible.
Christianity's reading of the Tanakh is completely at odds with the Jewish interpretation, so unless it's being taught by a Biblical scholar who is familiar with the different interpretations, students are in danger of receiving sectarian religious indoctrination.
> the Bible, with a focus on the Old Testament,
Calling the Tanakh the"Old Testament" is essentially arguing that Christianity has triumphed over Judaism and that Judaism is just an inferior form of Christianity.
> few better books for illustrating and discussing primitive culture then the Torah.
Nice anti-Semitic snub there. -
@SweetViolet: We mostly mean Isrealites + Jesus.
@iratedog: Yeah, my English teacher who taught Genesis in School was Atheist. I certainly don't mind the teachers being Atheist, but it may not always be practical, especially in smaller communities where perhaps you only have one literature teacher.
@IanThal: "Nice anti-Semitic snub there."
Hardly. I'm saying our entire civilization is built off of them. And besides, the Torah is NOT Judaism today, it is Judaism 4000 years ago, and many of the societies discussed in the Torah and ways of living discussed in the Torah are not themselves Jewish. And in any case, how paranoid are you? How could you possibly believe that anyone would think that the ethnic group which built NYC was "primitive?" And everybody knows what "Old Testament" means! -
Jeremy-
"And in any case, how paranoid are you?"
Please refrain from making personal insults when I'm pointing out that you are making statements (I do hope you made them unconsciously) that are insulting to an entire faith. Either way, the more defensive you became the less coherent your statements became.
"Old Testament" is a Christian term and even if it is widely used, it has the cononations of Christian triumphalism over and replacement of Judaism. It's simply not a term one should be using if one is an advocate of religious pluralism and inter-faith dialogue. Yes, everyone knows what books you are talking about, but to many Jews it chas added connotations of oppression, segregation-- like the ghettos and the inquisitions.
Even taken from a secular point of view, Torah is a very rich and sophisticated text. Though many of the primary characters are nomads, it was clearly written by literate city dwellers (i.e. the most generally agreed upon definition of "civilized.") One does not refer to the Torah as "primitive" just as one does not refer to the Odyssey as "primitive." Again, if one wants to show respect to Jews and Judaism, one doesn't refer to their holiest scripture as "primitive."
And to clarify: New York City was "built" by people of many ethnic groups, and while there were Jews there since the initial Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam, the appearance of Jews as the most conspicuously prominent minority in that city only begins in the late 19th century. -
@IanThal: May have been written by city-dwellers, but as it advocates stoning for just about everything has an extensive (and neccessary, at that time) element of the primitive. Any society whose enforcement abilities are so limited that they must resort to such extreme justice to create any semblance of law and order is, well, primitive. Not an insult, just a statement of fact.
And beyond that, I'm not defensive, I'm puzzled and irritated. Look, does anyone honestly think that only "city-dwellers" can write decent literature? Why don't you run off and tell that to Twain, Hemmingway, Robert Frost, and all the other great writers of America Ruraldom, or for that matter Jack London, who in many ways WAS A BETTER WRITER because he didn't have a formal education and spent his time high up in the arctic and out at sea instead of in schnazy coffee shops with all your cosmpolitan types.
You can say NYC was built by many groups, but Morgan Stanley and 99% of the corporations that employed all those many groups were run by Jews. Thus, the city was built by Jews, as the others wouldn't have jobs and clearly weren't taking the initiative to get them by way of making their own businesses. -
Civilization is defined as a culture or society centered around cities, Mark Twain et al. may not themselves have been city dwellers during their entire life (and keep in mind that Twain himself lived in San Francisco for part of his life and also spent several years as a world traveller) but the lived as part of industrial societies that were centered around cities-- with technologies like trains, telephones, postal service, periodical literature that simply cannot exist in preindustrial societies. Jack London was as much a product of this society as anyone: he was literate and lived some of his life in urban areas, he engaged in correspondence with publishers and other writers. Hemingway spent a good amount of his career living in Paris (France, not Texas) and Frost lived in both New York and London (England, not Ontario) before retiring to rural life. Frost's poems about city life is a sadly neglected part of his ouvre.
To dismiss to a body of literature that is thousands of years old as "primitive" simply because it mentions or is seen to advocate a death penalty, when in fact, it is only very recently that societies have begun to turn against the death penalty is ahistorical-- and quite simply shows a lack of understanding of the book itself-- it shows a basic misunderstanding of the poetry, the humor, and the religious imagination present in the text.
As to New York: mentioning a single financial institution that happens to have Jewish owners does not make a case that "New York was built by Jews." It has been a city that has been hospitable to Jewish Americans, but anyone who knows even a little about the history of the city knows it was built by diverse hands and planned by diverse minds.
The point is that you made some inappropriate word choices that could be interpreted as showing contempt for Jews and Judaism. I prefer to assume you did so unintentionally, but it is still important to point such things out so that we can move on to a more constructive conversation. -
Death penalty? We're talking about killing people by stoning (which is a pretty bad way to go) and then burying them in umarked graves for swearing, skipping the sabbath, and sexual perversion! That ain't no normal death penalty pal.
It was called for at the time, because without it you can't enforce the law, and its clear in Genesis that God was really never really that fond of that kind of justice (mark of Cain) but things were so uncontrolled and lawless that only the specter (even if reasonably unlikely) of gruesome death could enforce ANY law, thus God said "ah well" and realized it was needed under the circumstances, even adding his own curse to it ("for (R)he who is hanged is accursed of God" Deuteronomy 21: 23, ASV)
Now, this is something they didn't even do in the Wild West, where you at least had to steal a horse to get killed and then by hanging or shooting. Then again, the Wild West had much better communications technologies (like telegraphs, to deal with fleeing criminals) and repeating rifles, which increased the ability of the average guy to defend himself.
But back to the point, why do you think that there is something so unique about cities that you have to live in one to be a great writer? The guys who wrote Beowulf didn't live in cities - may not have even known what they were. The guys who wrote the myths of most American Indian tribes were nomadic, and yet those are far more beautiful then most of the literary abominations coming out of London, Paris, and NYC these days.
Every society went through a period of being primitive. Only if they were derived from another society, as with America from England from the Saxon tribes of Old Germany and the Angle tribes of Norway, and the Jute tribes of Old Jutland (the Old meaning that the people who live their today are different from those living there back then) does any society get to skip a period of history, which really means that none do, as they still share the history of that society.
To assume this isn't true simply for the sake of political correctness is sacrilige and I won't stand for it. Yes, primitivism exists! It is alive, fear for your life. -
No, it's not about "political correctness" it's about your ignorance and voicing of religious bigotry-- and while I was content to assume at first that you were simply unaware of the connotations of your word choices, your increased defensiveness, tells me that yes, indeed, you are a bigot, and one whose understanding of the history, literature, or individuals he cites are ignorant.
By the way, "Beowulf" exists in its current form, as a text that you can appreciate, as the result of editorial compilation by scribes and scholars of numerous versions of oral tradition, again a product of urbanization. None of these myths exist in "original primitive" form.
Anyway, complain about religious executions in Deuteronomy all you want: Christians were still engaged in ritual killings of Jews up until 1945 or so. -
@IanThal: Strictly speaking, the "religious executions" in Deuteronomy were legal executions, pure and simple, to keep unity of the tribe and a reasonable level of lawfulness. They demonstrate something, however, about the culture involved. Beowulf was copied down by not scholars but a single monk at an abbey, and you can tell where the monk changed up the story a tiny bit and where he didn't, and where he didn't is usually the better part of the story. You don't have to have coffee shops and subway stations to have inspiration Ian, to have emotion, to have ideas and beliefs. Maybe in those days when people looked out at the stars, and sat with their families by the campfire, people were more creative and more inspired.
Ian, the fact that your society came from somewhere and didn't just rise up out of the sand is not a call to shame. Indeed, if it weren't so it might be a call to shame. -
Jeremy-
a.) You might not realize it, but a monastic scribe counts as a scholar, as do the subsequent translators, and commentators that annotate and provide context for understanding the narrative. Abbeys, even if removed from city centers, still arise from the division of labor that comes with civilization, and are again still connected with cities through lines of communication, social and religious hierarchies, and economic exchanges.
b.) Once again, focusing on a few isolated passages from a set of five books that were compiled from several different sources by a team of scholars and pronouncing the final product "primitive" demonstrates minimal knowledge and understanding of the text in question or of the culture that produced it.
c.) "Primitive" beginnings are simply not recorded in writing. The writing is always the product of the already civilized: the account may be mythology, or it might be well-informed hypothesis. But primitives, by definition, do not leave written accounts of themselves.
d.) By your definition of "primitive," Europeans are still "primitives" if we take into account the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. -
@ianThal: a) Yeah, and as anyone who has studied Beowulf knows, it was those monastic types who screwed up the text by adding Beowulf giving that spoiled brat prince a sword and other cheesy, misplaced, obviously Catholic scenes.
Oh, BTW, there actually was a Native American storyteller (within the tribe, not a scholar) who published quite a few of the myths that I've read. Her name was Mourning Dove. Look er' up. Best ones I've read too. The scholars tend to mess it up with all their little self-serving opinnions.
b) Maybe you need a better understanding of what I mean by "primitive." And anyways, I'm referring to the society, not the book. The book is very advanced. Those "city-dwellers" who copied all the books down but a couple (Job, one of my favorites, is one of those exceptions) were extremely religious Jews who would clearly not take kindly to revisionism. Even Jews today don't take kindly to revisionism, and anyone who has studied the bible knows that in the past it was more so.
c.) They leave oral accounts of themselves that are very dear to people's hearts. Also, some primitive cultures (like the Inuit) actually did develop writing systems before civilization, as possibly did the Han Chinese (would explain many of the images used for characters, and in particular the representation of female supremacy, something that we believe for a whole series of reasons died out when the cities grew in China.) Likewise, although the Torah itself may have been recorded in Babylon, the book of Job was recorded before the era of the Kings in Isreal. It is not unheard of.
d.) No. I am saying that primitivism NECCESITATES draconian punishment. I am saying that those who are primitive have no choice, much as the Wild West had to use a much stricter and, in many ways, less just code of law in attempting to establish some semblance of order. Of course, it wasn't quite as primitive as Ancient Isreal as certain technologies (automatic firearms, the modern domesticated horse paired up with relatively inexpensive feed, and the telegraph) made individual enforcement and action more practical.
Now that you mention it, one of the main differences between Old & New Testaments is the emphasis on individualism and honor, things that certainly exist in the Old Testament in nooks and cranies like the Histories but are not in primary focus. By comparison, in the NT you are the temple of God and the only two people smited by the Lord in this testament (Anianas and Sapphira, Acts 5) are smited for lying.
-
-
Well I don't think parents educate children anymore, no matter what it's the school in the end, when parents force children for religion whereas the social pressure is against religion, there is a big chance that children of future generation will be less and less believers in traditional religions.-
If only
-
Well that's the way it should be, Live and let live.
-
Finally, some progress. I wish I was born a few hundred years from now when we'd lost all sense of religion...happy days...
-
-
Well this is rather simple. If a student or students wish to bring their bible(s) to school, then they have the right to do so. However, if it is going to cause problems in classes, as in the student is reading from the bible when they should be paying attention to the teacher, then the teacher has the right ask the student to put the bible away and if that doesn't work then to take it away and return it to the student at the end of class.
However more to the point, yes a student should be able (and is able) to bring their bible(s) to class.-
No, sorry you misunderstood. They mean the Bible being taught in schools, not bring the physical thing to class.
-
I understand that, I was simply giving my opinion to the issue faithfulinprayer raised about "christian clubs" and bringing bibles to school. Since Agit8r covered the issue with the christian club thing already, i felt I would expand my views toward the bible issue. I guess i forgot it click on the whole reply link. woops sorry about any confusion there.
-
-
Right. This is a very important issue - one that deserves this level of debate. As an Atheist myself I find it somewhat offensive when people want to teach "intelligent design" in Science classes. However, I have absolutely no problem in putting religion in a Religious Studies class. As long as it is learnt about, not followed. I think its important for children to learn about the concept of religion and the vast varieties that have arisen from Christianity to Seekism, from Islam to the Ancient Gods.
-
Public schools, as an extension of our government (which is supposed to remain secular and essentially weak agnostic), should NEVER be used as a vehicle for indoctrinating children into any belief system: Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, et al. They should instead focus their efforts on not doing such a terrible job of educating our children. An example of them doing a terrible job at educating our children is trying to teach "Intelligent Design" in biology classes. It's not science. Arg!-
I know! It's crazy! It's one thing to teach that in Religious Studies, but Science?!?
-
"Intelligent Design" doesn't even belong in a religious studies class. It's bad (i.e. poorly thought out) theology. Most educated people of faith don't have a problem with science (they might have ethical issues with the application of certain technologies, but that's an entirely different issue.)
-
I am aware. The problem is that the most ardent believers are uneducated, yet politically active.
-
@IanThal: Certainly obsessing about and wasting energy on creationism is bad theology. I'm not entirely sure you can't either a) reconcile the two ala Calvinism or b) simply believe that the system is broken here however, but if the most important call to faith in your life is arguing over something like creationism, and if that really is all you learned by reading Genesis, then yes, that is very bad faith.
I will admit though that for people like me and Voodoo logic and science do matter, difference though being that Voodoo's more of a scientist and I'm more of a mathematician who is currently studying engineering so he can actually DO SOMETHING after college. -
Actually, my chosen major is computer engineering. I just have a slightly different way of thinking than you do.
-
I'm guessing Bertrand Russel, from NP's favorite quote, has a different way of thinking then you as well.
-
It was a basic principle of theological traditions that are indebted to Aristotle (Maimonides in Jewish theology, Averrhoes in Islamic theology, and Thomas d'Aquin in Catholic theology) that if God created human reason, then the product of human reason (science) must be ultimately reconcilable with revealed truth-- so if science and scripture are in contradiction, the problem is human understanding of one or the other, but ultimately that theology and science treat two very different topics-- most modern theology, even if it has moved away from Aristotle, treats the relationship between science and religion similarly.
Consequently, those rejecting scientific methodology because they see it as opposed to God, also have a rather unsophisticated theology, since it is based on rejectionism as opposed to either synthesis or acceptance of ambiguity. -
@IanThal: Absolutely. However, as I brought up before, due to the fallacy (that's right, Voodoo, fallacy) of SCIENTIFIC induction (distinguished from the mathematical sort) it may be our misunderstanding of science. Namely, the limitations of.
Far from oppose scientific methodology, I myself am an engineering student who also studies mathematics, though I am not yet published as a mathematician, but I do recognize that it is limited and, really, is there anything at this particular instant that prevents God from swarming your room with giant spiders and chewing you out of this world? No. Is it the normal series of events? No. Does God want the world to be fit for human tinkering, ala "take dominion over..." (Genesis 1, God's blessing to Adam & Eve), absolutely. So 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the time science will work. But it doesn't take much to invalidate scientific induction when looking at the past, especially an intervention that was infinitely small in the amount of time taken. -
Prove that it's a fallacy, not a mere hypothetical problem.
Keep in mind what "fallacy" means. It means a failure to obtain validity. What deductive argument does science make? An implicit mathematical one:
If the laws that govern the universe are constant, then we should be able to understand those laws by studying the relationships between variables.
This would be a fallacy if the premise were true but the conclusion were false.
Having a false premise DOES NOT MAKE IT A FALLACY.
Q.E.D.
There are fallacies of induction, but induction itself is not a fallacy. www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_3.html
What some people erroneously label the fallacy of induction is actually called the Fallacy of Accident.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%28fallacy%29 -
@vK: Your false conclusion is that the laws hold absolutely, when in fact you have merely shown that the probabillity of them not holding is C^k (assuming that each experiment does not affect the next and the probability of each experiment not being valid is exactly the constant C each time k.) As I have shown, the probability needed to eliminate the possibility of randomness is 0 as you have no idea exactly how much can happen in one vent. Thus, fallacy.
In fact, strictly speaking Science does not actually use induction. It uses ordinary probabilistic or statistical reasoning. To say it uses induction would be to say that you can have induction with no inductive step. -
It's a basic misunderstanding that "scientific laws" have the same fixed status as relationships between mathematical or logical entities (which are imaginary.) Science grasps that its theories are rational interpretations of the world that it encounters (which, if one is a monotheist and theologically inclined, a world God created.) In short, the entire methodology of science, including peer-review, experimental repeatability, statistics, are there so that the interpretation, is a rigorous and well supported one.
Science is a pragmatic business.
Now, if we had a theology where God was inclined to do things that made humanity's logical faculties useless, we get a more gnostic theology of demiurges-- Now I realize some branches of American Christianity are gnostic in their opposition to reason (see the Creationists), but that actually places them, historically speaking, into the heterodox camp and well outside the intellectual traditions of "mainline" Christianity.
-
-
Well...conservatives keep insisting that the U.S. is a christian country. They'll never change that P.O.V.-
The conservative right will always insist on this myth that somehow America is funded upon Judeo-Christian heritage when clearly the founding fathers were deists not theists. I believe it was Thomas Paine who said:
"What has the bible brought us? Rapine, cruelty, and murder."
Why this simple fact seems to eluded them is really quite pathetic if you ask me. -
@ReneMonroe: The "founding fathers" were a handful of priviliged elites. The majority of immigrants (fathers of most of us) to this country had a very strong root in the Bible, and although I will not vouch for the quality of their theology, the colonies of Maryland, Massacheutsets, Connecticut and Rhode Island were established as religious colonies, while a series of religious groups (the Quakers being at the forefront) were a sizable portion of the colonization of Pennsylvania. You can tell from the cliches and saying used in our language, like "Money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 16, mistrans. by KJV), "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39), and "Christ figure," that there is a very heavy biblical influence. You can also tell from comparisons of American music and church hymns.
But yeah, there are non-Christians and non-Jews living in this country, though they too may be more saturated then they think.
Does this mean they were exceptionally good Christians? Not neccesarilly, although if it weren't true it would mean they were bad Christians, Satan himself can also quote scripture quite nicely. But it does mean that, like it or not, the Bible is a building block of our society, and even your founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson, who edited his own annotated bible that you can still buy today) had a heavy Christian influence, as does Rock & Roll despite the fact that it is, clearly, not Christian.
-
-
I'm an Atheist and I would be fine with it being an optional class for those who wish to learn about it. However, everyone should not be made to learn about it like I was forced to in school, it should be optional. I also think it's ridiculous how they can't celebrate Christmas and Easter and other holidays in school anymore because some people may be offended!! As a kid I loved singing all of the christmas songs and putting on little xmas plays.. you just can't make everyone happy, I guess. Everyone has to complain about something!-
There's a huge difference between learning about different cultures, or being engaged in seasonal activities on one hand, and having a school activity that essentially advocates a particular religious doctrine. Halloween, as practiced in the United States, is largely secular, and people can be free to not participate if their religious beliefs so dictate, but holidays like Easter and Christmas have very particular theological meanings.
-
@IanThal: You can cover the bible secularly. In my 10th-grade English class, we looked at Genesis and my instructor was a (militant) atheist.
-
Right, but 10th graders are expected to have some intellectual maturity (though many fail to show it.)
I have serious misgivings regarding many elementary and middle school students to show that sort of intellectual maturity when dealing with the scripture, interpretive traditions, or rituals of other faiths-- or with dealing with religious minorities within their own midsts.
-
-
It should be studied as we study Greek mythology and other mythologies.-
Right, but can you count on teachers being skilled enough to teach it in a manner that:
a.) does not advocate a particular sectarian view; and:
b.) encourages students to respect that even faiths that share the same scripture do not necessarily agree on the interpretation?
After all, the reason we stress Greco-Roman mythology is because western literature and art is filled with references to that mythology while at the same time, it's not seen as advocating a particular faith.
-
-
yes -
HELL 2 the NO!!!-
[HELL 2 the NO!!!]
Please clarify. To what extent do you want Bibles to be involved in the publicly funded education of both Christians and non-Christians?
-
-
Ummm,let me think NO! I gave u my answer hunny dew,if u don't like it,deal.
Sometimes in life you don't get the answer ur looking for,in that case deal with it and life goes on. Still luv ya tho,voodoo...as creepy as that sounds to u,haha-
So you refuse to clarify information when it was requested in a friendly atmosphere, then you say "luv ya."
passiveaggressive.homestead.com/PATraits.html -
It's not that we don't like your answer, Holly, it's that we can't understand what you are saying.
-
-
Definitely NO!!! the bible is a good piece of literature. Childs have to learn about different points of view.-
I agree. Let's also encourage them to read some other great works that emphasize different points of view:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf -
Additionally, let's also require all students to study Calculus 3 and Differential Equations. We wouldn't want anyone to go through life without being exposed to those ideas, would we?
The point I'm trying to make is that not everyone is mentally prepared to handle tough issues. Immature people who are exposed to religious ideas are going to develop blind faith out of fear of the consequence of disbelief. If someone wants to be religious, they should do so on their own time. We spend way too much classtime on crap that kids will never use as it is (standardized testing).
(Edit is broken.) -
@ Car
The bible is not a point of view. It's a story book. For some people it holds spiritual truth, and for other's it does not. But teaching it in school is not a source of actual opinion. -
@voodookobra Interesting that you include the Satanic Bible there. I personally love the philosophy Anton LeVay advocated in the Satanic Bible. Although I did enjoy reading the Satanic Scriptures more. But Im glad to see that people are not as afraid of the philosophy of Anton LeVay and The Church of Satan as they used to be.
Btw, cool fact about the church, did you know that, despite having tax-exempt status, the Church of Satan is the only recognized religious organization that pays taxes (property, income etc). -
they giveth unto Ceasar?
-
-
This entire discussion is actually lighting up a rather large point in my view and that is censorship. There are some who feel that religious texts should be banned from public schools, though I have not read that here, and there are those who feel it should be encouraged. What I find hilarious about this whole issue is if we as a country look to areas where the bible is in the public school libraries but then books such as Paradise Lost or The Divine Comedy or even Harry Potter are banned. I find that amazing myself. Though this mainly occurs in the bible belt, (actually, it only occurs in the bible belt) it still is occurring. Just something I thought people may like to think about thats all.
-
[There are some who feel that religious texts should be banned from public schools, though I have not read that here, and there are those who feel it should be encouraged.]
Then there's the majority of the people who don't fit into your false dichotomy who just don't want a state endorsement of one particular religion over the others, or over non-religion. -
Which is exactly what was stated. However using the most extreme examples to illustrate that point is more effective than simply using two minor examples i.e. endorsement of religion over non-religion or vice versa. Which is why I said that the discussion was revolving around the idea of censorship, thus implying that the issue is larger than simply bible or no bible in school.
-
"it only occurs in the bible belt"
and Wasilla, AK... -
-
@agit8r Lol. I was meaning "only in the bible belt" in a more sarcastic manner, playing off of the stereotype of the bible belt. However have books such as the ones mentioned been banned in school libraries in Wasilla? Did that by chance happen while that ever so lovely Sarah Palin was mayor?
-
Yes and No...
' Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor. '
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html
so I was wrong, no books were banned, even though the Mayor wished them so.
-
-
The question is just vague, which accounts as to why the discussion has meandered all over the place.
Do you mean "Should public schools present a particular religious point of view?"
Or do you mean "Should students be made aware of the role of the many different religious traditions that have shaped the world with reference to a number of texts, including the Bible?"-
Yeah, those are very different questions with two different answers. "No" and "Yes," respectively.
-
Agreed, although the second question is loaded. Let's phrase it more widely:
"Should students be made aware of the bible from a humanities point of view?"
The rest can be added in your answer. -
That's more like the first question. The problem is that people want to turn public schools into recruiting centers for Christianity, Islam, or fill in the blank with any religion.
-
hence, why Taliban means "students" o_0
-
@vK: Sure. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about treating the bible like Illiad or Aeneid.
-
As long as nobody purports that everything is factual and tells people they're bad and destined to eternal suffering if they don't believe in it, then I don't see any major problems. Just minor logistical ones.
-
I think it is pretty clear that the OP was about a Christianist Facebook message.
-
@vK: Sure. Glad to see we're on the same page here for the most part.
@Agit8r: Yeah, but this is an important side discussion.
-
-
Why do you think like that?I think it is okay-
Who exactly are you addressing, and why?
-
-
What criteria do you use for deciding which books should be allowed in public schools and which should be kept out?-
Those criteria change all the time and vary from faction to faction.
-
I don't think it is a matter of IN. I don't think virtually anyone would say that the book ought not to be in the school library or in a teacher's desk drawer. The issue is those nutjobs who want it to be TAUGHT as doctrine in publically funded institutions. Such would institutionalize religion as part of government no differently than OUR ENEMIES in the world! o_0
-
-
I;m not so sure that is should be kept out. If a kid wants to pray then let him. On his own accord. It shouldn't be forced on anyone or made mandatory or anything. There is a lot to be said for separation of church and state. But to deny a person the right to worship wherever they are isn't right either. -
Their is nothing wrong with the bible. It is a pretty good book. Nothing bad can come from teaching it,or any of holy book of virtues,morals and a way to live. I don't get why people are so scared of it. If nothing you're better off knowing it,or the koran,and tankeh.
-
The Bible is not a "bad book" as a book. Nevertheless It should be rated PG or, in the case of Old Testament, even R. Even the stories told in Sunday schools (about Lot, Noah, even Abraham) are heavily redacted - out of necessity. Some of the details are definitely not for children.
-
-
I'm not scared of it. I actually kinda like it. I don't think it should be shoved down people's throats and them not have a choice though. Maybe the morals and way to live in it are not for everyone and they have their own ideas about that.
-
I would say that the "morals" and way to live in the Old Testament are antithetical to anything remotely American. Our nation's founders desired to create a bastion of enlightenment in a feudal, superstitious, and bigoted world.
-
@Agit8r: Like everything, it has to be taken in the context of the time and place.
-
right. If it is taught as mere history and tradition (thus in context), that is fine.
If it is taught as the plan of a never-changing god (thus requiring no context whatsoever), then that is not the place of public education. -
@Agit8r: I don't call it mere history and tradition, I call it (meaning the bible, the Aeneid, the Illiad, Beowulf, Norse & Greek mythology, and Chaucer...) 90% of who we are. You don't make progress by abandoning your past. You make progress by building a future out of your past. Abandon your past and you're left with nothing, no motivation, no personal strength, nothing.
-
90% of who we are?
how so? o_0 -
@Agit8r: It's from your knowledge of yourself that your actions and your heart and soul comes. From what has happened in the past, you have a grounding in the world as it exists today, your family, your friends and teachers, what is said around you and how it is understood. You also know of where what you had comes from, and those to whom you should be grateful, and the mistakes of the past. You find role models and father figures to allow you to edge past the just one you are naturally provided with and become more balanced and free and liberated. And you start to, with this widened framework, see more clearly your own mind. It is from things of this sort that we come from.
-
I've never read the Aeneid, the Illiad, or Beowulf. I'm not sure that a majority of Americans have. I've only met one or two other people who have read the entire bible (at least with whom I have spoken of such things).
I realize that it affects out language and the various cultural references in our lives, but I couldn't say that i would equate that to 90%... or even 50% -
Yeah but the people who have are often themselves writers, poets, musicians, philosophers, and then spread more popular works that people read, but down the chain, it still ends at the classics and can be mostly understood from them.
-
but not all of our cultural influences stem from Nords and Greeks and Semites. Take American popular music for instance. It is not so very derivative of Chausser. Rather, it derived during the antebellam period from Scotts-Irish folk music and African work-songs. Later it was touched by other influences, due to the mosaic that is American culture. It would be hard to argue that this was DIRECTLY due to those influences that you mentioned, but rather more to the enlightenment thinking of those who framed the government around freedom. Yes those other thing had an INDIRECT effect, but I can't call that "90% of who we are" in good conscience
-
Scottish Irish Folk Songs would be very much that Norse Celtic influence, and the two mix quite a bit because, after all, nearly all the cities in Ireland and quite a few in Southern Scotland and Northern England were established by Vikings, while the North Sea has always been such an important area of commerce that traffic from every which direction does flow in to every which side of it, with the Germans in the South, the Scandinavians in the Northeast, and the British in the Northwest.
The African influence, however, would definitely fit in that 10%. Significant, certainly worth mentioning, but not on the same level as those first three. Other major influences worth mentioning (and perhaps briefly studying) would include the Hispano-Islamic (which is especially heavy in Texas and very definitive there), the Chinese (which had a major influence on England and they in turn brought it here), and the Native American (responsible for many regional differences and American Federalism.)
-
-
No. The bible isn't crack or a gun -- it is a book. Teaching religion in the classroom I can see, but banning the bible itself? I'd rather they focus on ridding schools of lice and pervy teachers.-
do lice and pervy teachers go together?
ohhh... -
I wouldn't doubt it. Oh wait, that's crabs and pervy teachers. My bad.
-
crabs are lice
-
-
Neener,neener
-
I am a public school teacher in NYC. I believe that there is no place for religion in the public schools due to the diversity in the religions of our students. If you want your kid to learn about God send him to parrochial school. A public school is funded by the state and there is a separation between church and state. As parents, it is up to us to teach our children about religion at home if we so choose.-
I agree.
1) The teachers wouldn't correctly teach the bible.
2) All religions would need equal time.
3) There's no time for all that as many students struggle to read and write as it is. -
no kidding... pastors don't even correctly teach the bible
-
I agree with jflower on this.
-
-
Well we can agree to disagree.
-
@jeremyjanson. "Thomas Jefferson, who edited his own annotated bible that you can still buy today) had a heavy Christian influence..."
I am sorry but that is false. Jefferson edited his own bible out of his disdain for Christianity. He wasn't alone either. It was also Benjamin Franklin who said that:
"Light houses are more useful than churches."
James Madison:
"Religion and Government will exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
here's another from Madison:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Here is Thomas Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
From his edited version of the Bible:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Ethan Allen
"Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."
John Adams:
"The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
So maybe, yes the original settlers who came to this country might have been radical Christians. When it came to the creation of our country, to the very documents that outline the way the laws of are nation are made, our founding fathers in no way based any of it off of Christianity in any way shape or form. True they believed in God, but NOT the Christian idea of God.-
Jefferson's Bible was about the teachings of the philosopher from Nazareth himself, who was pretty anti-clerical in his own right.
Jeshua (Jesus) taught in the tradition of Ethical Judaism. The biblical accounts of his teachings resemble those of Hillel the Elder and others in the same line. -
@RM: I'm sorry, "Heavy Christian Influence" =/= "Christian." And anyways, we're talking about the Bible here, not really Christianity at all.
Beyond that, who is more important for building a country? The majority of the population, or 12 people with too much money? Government is not that huge of an influence on Culture - America & Japan have almost entirely the same government and very few cultural similarities relative to, oh lets say, the US & USSR, both basically in the Western tradition. -
of course we are a country of "Laws and not of men"
-
@Agit8r: Since when.
-
since a constitution was written. although the phrase "of laws and not of men" comes from the Massachusettes state constitution.
-
The Constitution was written for 13 independent colonies that created a de facto national government. Back then that phrase made sense because there was no USA. There was "These United States of America." And anyways, governments come and go but cultures remain, and no one becomes who they are because of the way their government is structured.
-
In this case, i was referring to the first addendum to the document.
-
Sure, but who understands themselves, their family, their society, their cliches, their beliefs, their prejudices, their role models and their values based on their government. I apologize for the lack of clarity.
-
A good lot of people identify with traditions that our founding fathers institutionalized. Our self sufficiency. Our distrust of external authority. Our casual manners. our utilitarian dress. Our notion of nominal soveriegnty of the individual. these are every bit as dependent on our frontier habitat as from the european continent
-
@Agit8r: I think you're confusing the American West with the Founding Fathers - nothing about the constitution spreads such ideas as the Japanese and other more dependent democracies have demonstrated. Come to the East Coast some time and you'll see what I mean.
Also, a lot of that actually links in to the Nordic Celtic side of our culture, especially the more Scottish English side (Beowulf) and the Viking side (Norse Mythology.) If you'd read Beowulf you'd know what I mean.
-
-
Ayeee
-
Well with that theory, what about the president pushing his speech to stay in school or you let your country down. And In God we trust is our country. I don't think teachers or anyone else should be telling your kids what to believe or what to do, that should come from the parents. But you cannot take away their rights to have a bible study or to believe in school.-
I don't believe that most rational people would agree to anyone taking away a students religious rights. However, most rational people would agree that institutionalizing religion through the public school system would be wrong.
As many have already stated, simply bringing a Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, or anything religious text, into a school and reading it is not a problem. It is the idea of the bible being taught in a literal sense and not a historical/cultural sense, that is the problem.
-
-
"There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly distinct from the wrong. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and All Knowing" The Quran - 2:256.
Reading the Bible, the Quran(Koran)and the Torah, should not be forced but encouraged. These are books that aim to show mankind how we should lead our lives as decent human beings and walk on the straight path. If students read and are brought up with freedom of choice they will find the Truth for themselves.
Peace -
I do not understand what all these comments are meant to achieve.
Would you be comfortable if your children do not know you and acknowledge you as their parent?
God is the creator of the universe and Jesus Christ is his son.
Those who have been created by God will seek him and his son Jesus Christ and try to understand HIS views as contained in the Bible.
Therefore, those who belong to God will seek HIM and will find HIM even in those schools that I believe should teach children about christianity and should have bibles in them.
Those who do not belong to Jesus should not bother though He still died for you.
Freedom without boundary is bondage and such freedom can only be found in the grave and in hell.
Be well guided.-
You may believe that God created you, the universe, so on so forth. However, there are many who don't. An elective class that teaches the fundamentals of religion, including Christianity, are fine.
However, it should not be dictated as pure truth or fact in the public school. If parents wish to have the ideology of religion imprinted on their children, then that is fine. That is what we have private schools for.
However when the subject comes to public schools, which are funded by tax dollars, then the basic curriculum should be not be persuaded one way or the other with regards to religion. The public schools should remain neutral.
As I have mentioned before, a student who wishes to bring their religious text to school and read it on their own time, that is fine. However, students should not be forced to sit in class and be told that any religious ideology has prominence over another. -
[Would you be comfortable if your children do not know you and acknowledge you as their parent?]
If I were nonexistent, it would not matter.
[God is the creator of the universe and Jesus Christ is his son.]
There are people, such as myself, who think this is false. Or at least, they don't believe that this claim is true.
[Those who have been created by God will seek him and his son Jesus Christ and try to understand HIS views as contained in the Bible.]
Then there's clearly no need to put them in schools; what with the abundance of churches in our country.
[Those who have been created by God will seek him and his son Jesus Christ and try to understand HIS views as contained in the Bible.]
Wait, what? I don't see any logic here. If a person is going to honestly "seek [God]," then they're going to do it regardless of whether or not there are Bibles in public schools. They'll walk/drive down to the nearest church, crack open a book, and read. Or, more likely in this country, sit there and listen to some old man with an allegedly relevant degree from a dubious unaccredited university tell him/her what to believe. But that's just a cynical example. There's no need to put Bibles in public, state-funded schools paid with tax dollars from Christians and Non-Christians alike.
[Those who do not belong to Jesus should not bother though He still died for you.]
I don't know what you mean by this, other than the guilt trip you're trying to lay on us towards the end.
[Freedom without boundary is bondage]
I'm not sure I could literally agree to this, but too much freedom is a vice.
[and such freedom can only be found in the grave and in hell.]
Superstition. -
"A pox on both your houses." No, seriously guys, what does this even have to do with the subject at hand?
-
I fart in your general direction.
-
-
lets be real. the people who make radical facebook groups about school prayer and teaching the bible want it to be manditory:
www.cc.org/userlink/save_america_make_schools_obey_law-
Of course they do. For Christians, evangelizing is mandatory as per The Great Commission and they are determined to brainwash not only their own children in their own homes, but also to demand that public school teachers, who may or may not be Christians, must brainwash other people's children too. "Give us a child under six and we will have him for life," is a motto I was raised hearing. The bottom line here is that those making these demands are the radical fringe, who choose to believe that America was founded to be a Christian nation, when that's not true. They are bigots ie. prejudiced people who are intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
IMO all religious texts ought to be housed in the library and no religious classes of any kind ought to be taught in public grade schools. Creationism does not belong in science classes. In highschools comparative religious classes ought to be offered as electives. -
they surely don't really believe that ours was founded as a christian nation. I always assumed they just say that to justify their wanting to radically change it to have the same theocratic structure as our enemies in the world.
-
If they say it, but don't actually believe it, and who could believe such tripe knowing that the founding fathers were dieists, then they are not defenders of democracy at all. Anyone who is determined to replace "freedom of religion" in America with Christianity actually desires to live in a theocracy.
-
Here's a great Barry Goldwater quote for those "conservatives" out there:
"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:1V1GrBtBmYkJ:www.risquebbs.com/lf2/soul/BARRY...
-
-
Am trying to walk away of these topics aka religions and especially Christianity , but i have to say that Christianity is not the first fake religion and will not be the last . But everyone has it's own opinion . For me Jesus was like Bin Laden these days .Roman Empire had to stop him somehow so ..FAKE.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
