BlogCatalog

When I tried teaching world history, you would kind of think that religion of the region would be an important part of the curriculum, but my 7th graders got into an uproar and told me I was going to go to jail for teaching them religion. I calmly explained that I was not teaching religion anymore than I was teaching Chinese, but that to understand China and its history, knowing the religious beliefs only added to their understanding of the culture and country. The didn't get the difference between teaching a religion and merely teaching that others existed. For that matter, I also had trouble when I taught literature and taught The Scarlett Letter. I wasn't supposed to bring up religion according to my students. How can you teach The Scarlett letter without at least discussing the religion of the characters in the novel. I wasn't trying to convert a class to Puritanism. Education in America has gotten completely crazy. I don't agree with teaching a religion but I think letting children grow up ignorant of the existence of world religions or even the religious history of our own country is dangerous.

[reply]

9/05/08

blogonsmog

When your child comes home crying because he/she is a bastard because you and your spouse didn't get married in a Catholic church - then you will understand the reluctance to teach religion.

[reply]

9/05/08

pumpkinlights

That happened with me. I went to a Catholic school, but my parents (who were married before I was born) were married in city hall. Because of that, I was not allowed to take part in any sort of school activities because I was "a bastard in the eyes of God."
9/05/08

kristilinauer

That's terrible! I've never heard of such a thing!
9/05/08

csiunatc

Thats a school that teaches the doctrine as the truth, and therefore they are preaching. Which is not what I'm talking about.
9/05/08

Anok

I've received similar treatment. Only we were told we're going to hell.
9/05/08

MadameX

Pumpkin, that's wildly contrary to church teaching. I believe that you encountered it--the world is full of ignorant people and some of those people are priests and nuns. And, in fact, since it wasn't until the 1980s that Catholic religious education in the United States was formalized and standardized, generations of Catholic school children were taught by nuns who were presumed qualified to teach religious education because they were nuns, but who had never received any formal instruction themselves. It is true that the church does not recognize the marriage of Catholics outside the church, but that has NO effect on the eligibility of a child for the sacraments, let alone for social activities!
9/06/08

pumpkinlights

Haha, I guess I'll see ya' there Anok. I was told the same.
9/06/08

pumpkinlights

MadameX
Pumpkin, that's wildly contrary to church teaching
______________________________

That may be in your experience. But so many have experienced the same as me, I don't know if I would call it "wildly" contrary.
9/06/08

MadameX

Pumpkin, it's not a matter of "experience". The Catholic church is one of the few religions that has all of its key teachings codified. There is one official church teaching, and it is what it is. Practitioners, and even church leaders, may warp, distort, misunderstand or even lie about that sometimes, but that doesn't change the facts--there is official doctrine. It is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Anything that conflicts with that statement of the faith (which is more than 700 pages long and quite comprehensive) is NOT church teaching, no matter who says it.
9/06/08

csiunatc

It's a Miracle,

I agree with Mad X here,

The catholic church has one approved doctrine, which is both their strength and weakness.
9/06/08

pumpkinlights

MadameX, what you are describing is the difference between something in theory and in practice. I am not disputing what you say, but many people I know have had the same experiences that I have had in a Catholic school.
9/06/08

MadameX

I know that happens, Pumpkin, but I think it is very important to separate the source. Many, many, many police officers beat up suspects and manufacture evidence. That's a fact--flawed humans defy the law. But the law is still what it is, and in fact does not allow for those things. We recognize that bad cops, or even entire corrupt agencies, are the source of that behavior and not the law itself, which clearly prohibits that behavior.

What you describe is a HUGE problem, and one that requires attention. But the fact that someone in a nun's habit lied about the teachings of the church doesn't change what those teachings really are.
9/06/08

pumpkinlights

Madame, I am not debating what those teachings are to be. I was just agreeing with another poster who said that does often happen in religious schools.

9/05/08

Gmoney Broke your post from above down and moved it here.

Who's religion are we going to teach?
For an example.. Make the cutoff at the 98th percentile.
Teach every religion (and belief such as ateism) that has more than 2% of the worlds population
I'd prefer it if you could teach EVERYTHING, but i think we all know that would take more time than any school has.

The teacher that is teaching, what is their religious makeup?
That shouldn't matter, They are there to teach the facts about the religion. The actual makeup of beliefs.

How do we teach kids about Islam unbiasedly when as Christians we are bias?
By teaching the facts

Do we teach about the negativity of each religion, killing in the name of someones god or creator?
Absolutely, The negativity and conflict is a HUGE part of what has shaped world history.

Do we teach about the crusades that were done in the name of Christianity?
see above.

Is this class mandatory?
I would prefer it to be.

Is the class from a Christian point of view?
No, its from the Fact point of view.

Who selects the religions we are going to teach?
See the first answer.

How many Evangelical Christians are going to want their kids to learn about Islam?
Those not too obtuse to understand the value of knowledge.

With all that said, my favorite class was learning about world cultures and religion in HS......

[reply]

9/05/08

gmoney

sometime I think you are my brother from another mother, then you start talking about politics...... but honestly great points
9/05/08

csiunatc

Lol,

WE just don't agree on politics and politicians. Don't worry, i don't agree with one of my brothers from the same mother there either.

9/05/08

dosox

Huh... i just didn't get time to read all the posts... maybe i'll check out someday.
Well it's a great topic and i just love it...
Keep discussing.

According to me,
"Religion is the worst thing a man has ever created... It just creates conflicts and nothing more..."

[reply]

9/05/08

Kristinauer

You asked above about my statement on "Separation of church and state" but for some reason i can't get it to "reply" up there.

I think claiming that America has separation of church and state is ludicrous since the religion of nominees for position is always one of the first things to be discussed.

If there was separation of church and state, the religion of the elected shouldn't be something that people actually placed importance on. Now it seems that it is one of the key determining factors.

When i see religious notices being prevalent in all the campaigns. Convocations opening the conventions etc. It is pretty clear to me that religion is not only not separate, but a prerequisite for gaining office.

[reply]

9/05/08

Anok

The brouhaha's over religion now in elections has no bearing on how the constitution was set oh-so-many years ago.

Hopefully, the government continues to uphold such a separation (or, non endorsement, really) by way of laws and legislation that affect a country made up of people with different religious beliefs.

I think it is brought up more so now due to the fact that people are becoming concerned with politicians, and special interest/focus groups who try to implement religious doctrines into law.

9/05/08

Theresa111

Yes, teach about all of the religions so children can have a reality check as to what they ultimately will choose to believe. All this separatism amounts to paranoia.

[reply]

9/05/08

gmoney

csiunatc and kristilinauer could either of you teach a unbiased class about the Democrats or Obama?

[reply]

9/05/08

timethief

@gmoney
Ha! ha! ha! Good one. I'm rotflmao
9/05/08

kristilinauer

Yes, I could, gmoney. That might be difficult for you to believe, but teaching the basic ideas of a certain political party--especially as it relates to the history of our country from inception to present day--as fact would not be difficult from me, and I could definitely do it without prejudice.

Just as, in the same way, I could teach a class on comparative religions very easily and keep it to the facts, without turning it into proselytizing, even though my personal faith runs very deep.

You certainly have not seen that side of me, because here, you only see me involved in political and religious debates. Of course I'm going to share my beliefs and values, and argue my point of view. Here, we're not required to be unbiased.
9/05/08

gmoney

well that is good to know and not hard to believe. I am sure we are much more divided on here than we would be in person. It is easy to convey common ground and read body language in person than it is do it in a discussion room everyone has the right idea and we all want what is best for this country! We just all go about it in different ways and have different views on how to solve the issues.

9/05/08

Yes, I've taught social democrat policies as well. (Swedish Left) I actually like teaching it. I just don't believe it works in the long run. But why that is would be a very long post.

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with facts. And in school you teach the facts.

[reply]

9/05/08

timethief

And in school you teach the facts.

Well that wipes teaching any form of "creationism" right off the slate then as there is no factual component to the various creationism mythologies.

Also if Christianity were taught in public schools the subject of "which one" would arise because the dogma and doctrine vary from one sect to another and also because some sects interpret scripture literally and others interpret it figuratively.
9/05/08

gmoney

sounds like a lot of hope and faith that we could have a system that would teach religion open and honestly. I would argue that the Evangelical crowd and fringe Islamic crowd would never go for it.

Who's religion are we going to teach?
The teacher that is teaching, what is their religious makeup?
How do we teach kids about Islam unbiasedly when as Christians we are bias?
Do we teach about the negativity of each religion, killing in the name of someones god or creator?
Do we teach about the crusades that were done in the name of Christianity?
Is this class mandatory?
Is the class from a Christian point of view?
Who selects the religions we are going to teach?
How many Evangelical Christians are going to want their kids to learn about Islam?
9/05/08

kristilinauer

TT, I think you missed the point:

"Well that wipes teaching any form of "creationism" right off the slate then as there is no factual component to the various creationism mythologies."

He's not proposing that we teach a certain religion as "fact". He's saying that you teach the "facts" of the religion, i.e., teach the basic tenets of the religion. The "fact" would be that various religions believe in some form of creationism.

And G, I'm an evangelical Christian, and an ultra-conservative one at that, and I very much support the teaching the basics tenets of various religions, apart from preaching and proselytizing.

9/05/08

Fact

Creationists believe that the world was created by .....

Very simple.. very easy.. all fact.

no problem.

[reply]

9/05/08

timethief

God is the creator is NOT the the full set of beliefs that the various forms of creationism are built on. You really ought to check out the full set of teachings. Just type it into Google and have a ball.

Some creationists argue there is no complete fossil record for dinosaurs when in fact there is a huge fossil record. Others argue there is no complete fossil record for any species when indeed there is one for the horse, etc.(the dawn horse co-existed with dinosaurs). Others argue that the earth is only 6,000 years old and humans co-existed with them (Flintstones stuff).

IMO anyone promoting the notion that creationism ought to be taught in public schools really owe it to themselves and their children to read what the various creationist theorists postulate prior to jumping on the band wagon.
9/05/08

kristilinauer

TT, I feel like your trying to misunderstand him.

He's not saying that Creationism should be taught. He's saying that children should be taught that the idea of Creationism is a basic tenet of such-and-such religion.

I find it difficult that a person with your intelligence can't understand the difference, so I think you're just trying to be difficult.
9/05/08

csiunatc

I don't understand many things, so i'd be extremely happy if educated teachers were to teach those things to my children.

I don't care how looney the belief it. There is a fact about that belief that can and should be taught.

In first or second grade, I was not only taught that people used to believe that the world was flat. I also remember being taught the various "proof" that was used to substantiate that claim. Now ask yourself if i ever believed it? or seriously questioned that the world was really round?

I'd love to hear a school explaining and teaching what David Koresh preached and how he managed to control those people. Maybe that will save a life or two in the future.

9/05/08

"Creationism" isn't a religion per say. Those that believe it are normally part of another religion.

That being said, i certainly don't see the problem of teaching the facts and the arguments of something that is causing that much debate in a country.

The existence of that debate should be the very REASON to teach it.

[reply]

9/05/08

Down south, if you mention evolution or any other scientific theory of how the world came to be you get in trouble with parents, but ironically, these same parents are brainwashed into honestly believing that mentioning religion (any religion, even Christianity) will instantly turn their kids into some kind of cult follower. Tell me how that makes sense. I can't teach science because it does not agree with religion, I can't teach religion because it may not be the right religion. And remember even Christians of different denominations will fight to the death over who is really a true Christian. It all gives me a headache and kind of makes me sick because isn't the whole point of almost every religion to love everyone regardless of differences?

[reply]

9/05/08

timethief

@creativedreamevent
Yup. Christianity is a fear and guilt based religion. Among the most punitive and dangerously violent people on this planet we find Christians professing to believe they are members of an elite heaven bound group, who believe in the power of love and who practice it. Yeah sure. Actions speak louder than words.
9/05/08

thefly

@TT: I thought that was Catholicism, haha.

buzz buzz
9/05/08

csiunatc

Good points,

And again even more reason to teach all sides...

It's scary to me when parents want their children to be deprived of any view than their own. Or their interpretation of the opposing view.
9/05/08

kat822

Fly are you feeding the trolls again, good arguements and points made, you make this teacher proud
9/05/08

timethief

oops! wrong spot

9/05/08

Theresa111

If Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, Ronald McDonald, etc., can be used and or taught about in school, then why not science and religion? All subjects, including using the Internet, games shows, everything. It is part of the real world. The first things we learn about is from fairy tales.

[reply]

9/05/08

acousticguitarist

It's not a bad thing to teach in school, what needs to be taught is comparatve religion and the various ways of approaching God or whatever you'd like to call it.

Religio is the STUDY of God and is not necessarily about creating a relationship with God.

At my sons old school (public) they were told that they'd burn in hell if they weren't Christian. I took him out of school and told them that my God is a gOd of love not hate, how dare you teach that garbage to my son.
Children need to be able to lok intelligently at Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, the various strams of Hinduism and other faiths and be able to sse theunderlying core principles that bind humans, and to see wher the different approaches lead to, that the SUPPOSED end result of each one has a specific goal and each one of those goals, even though they lok similar, may not be the quite the same.

The issue is most religious people are not emotionally intelligent enough to deliver the facts without colouring it with a personal bias.

[reply]

9/05/08

timethief

The issue is most religious people are not emotionally intelligent enough to deliver the facts without colouring it with a personal bias.

I agree with you. Also note that if I would have had children they would NOT have been sent to public school. I strongly believe in homeschooling and the reasons why have been discussed in other forum threads.
9/06/08

acousticguitarist

I also had that view about home scholling but as my children gew I found that they needed a broader experience that what we could offer at home. The education stuff I can teach in a much faster user friendly manner than most teachers but the education that children really need at school is from their peers, when they get a bloody nose, when they have a best buddy or lose them, when they get a teacher they don't particularly like. There's a lot of pieces to this, the idea of homeschooling for some kids is great, the actuality of it is another thing. My kids go to Catholic schools, at times I'm appalled by their approach to religion as it odten misses the point.

9/05/08

Anti-intellectualism is really a problem in the South. I've never taught anywhere else, but I can tell you that the children who are truly interested in learning better have think skins and independent spirits because the vast majority of the other kids will ride them to death about their interest in school or their good grades. It is so bad that some children will deliberately make poorer grades than they are capable of just because they don't want to be made fun of. The absolute worst thing I encountered were African American students who excelled being literally persecuted for "acting white" simply because they spoke proper English. I even had a class discussion about that with them, but it didn't seem to make it any better for the students who really wanted to get an education and improve their place in the world. I never could figure out why or how these kids came to view getting an education or learning was either a bad thing or completely unnecessary. When a 8th or 9th grader will look you straight in the eye and tell you that there is no further reason to learn because they already know enough to get through life, it really makes you question the point behind working so hard to try to help someone who does not want help. Unfortunately, the longer I taught, the more widespread this attitude became and it seems epidemic. The absolute most disgusting part of it all was their firm belief that America was the greatest country in the world and that all we needed to do was bomb the rest of the world flat. I heard the expression make it a parking lot. The facts are that US colleges are graduating more foreign Ph.D.s than American students and that even looking around the small town I live in most of the M.D. and scientists are immigrants either first or second generation. The ignorance I see around me from within my own country scares me way more than the threat of terrorism from without. Our children are ignorant because it has become politically incorrect to teach them anything other than right wing propaganda. It may be in the books, but you don't dare bring it up in class or assign it for homework.

[reply]

9/05/08

clioandme

I agree that religion is relevant, but I don't know how it would work in this country's public schools. You have those who think that the separation of church and state means no religion in the schools at all. (The courts seem to agree and interpret the Constitution that way.) And you have those who cannot study religion academically but would instead require only the one true faith, i.e., their faith, be taught. The fights breaking out between people on each side of this dichotomy would catch the rest of us and our children in the crossfire. It would be ugly.

I believe that a speech Obama made two years ago on religion in public discourse touches on these issues—not for schools per se, but in American political culture: obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

I know religion classes work in Germany, generally, but maybe that's also because the religious landscape is less diverse (mainly Protestant [as a single denomination], Catholic, and Muslim), the people more secular, and the political culture more comfortable with the state mandating these kinds of things.

[reply]

9/05/08

csiunatc

you ask this question..

"I would love to see a kind of comparative studies class, but how to do that without igniting a culture war like none we’ve seen so far?"

By DOING it, and then dealing with the issues until you work out the kinks.
Primarily by separating judgement from knowledge. When i say , this is what some believe, i don't have to place a weight of right or wrong on it. I just have to teach that it is what they believe.

You do it by by not yielding to people who are afraid of knowledge being taught in school. (what a horrendous concept)

Regardless of how strange the beliefs of others seem to you. Learning what they actually believe is a benefit not a threat.

To be honest, i think those that are afraid of their children being subjected to any other knowledge than what they believe, or that any opposing view has to be labeled as wrong before it reaches them has to be very unsure about the veracity of their own beliefs to begin with.
9/05/08

gmoney

I liked the commnents
9/05/08

clioandme

@csiunatc: That answer acknowledges neither the constitutional realities nor the political culture, nor the diverse landscape of the United States. "Just Do It" works for Nike commercials and dictators, not this question in this country. Remember, we live in a democracy with laws and a process.
9/05/08

clioandme

By the way, what country were you referring to for your own experience? Germany? If so, what part and in which system did you grow up?

The Germany I experienced also teaches democracy, and they have laws against extremist groups that threaten the constitution over there. Here such people can run for office and sometimes even win. I point this out, because religious education is part of a much broader program than you are casting it.
9/05/08

AngieSS

csiunatc: "You do it by by not yielding to people who are afraid of knowledge being taught in school. (what a horrendous concept)"

Just because someone doesn't want a certain subject taught in school doesn't mean one is "afraid of knowledge". I, for one, just don't see the purpose or even how it's feasible. Who decides what religions are taught? There are so many that clearly that alone would make for quite an interesting problem. You would have to teach them all, as to leave one out would probably meet with some kind of legal action. Scientology? Snake Handler's? Voodoo? Who gets to determine who's religion is more worthy to be studied?

9/05/08

TeresaC

Since freedom of opinion doesn't exit in this discussion, I'm going to leave it alone, grab a beer and go spend quality time with my dogs in my backyard. Hopefully THE KNOWLEDGE POLICE won't track me down to force any of their knowledge on me.

[reply]

9/05/08

kristilinauer

Teresa, that's petty. You seem to be the one threatened when someone voices THEIR opinion to YOU.

9/05/08

voodooKobra

I don't have time to read this whole freaking topic, BUT:

Teaching religion in school is fine under the following conditions:
1. It is not taught in a science class.
2. It is not taught to be science in any way.
3. The class is an optional elective that no student is forced to take.
4. They focus on EVERY religion, and not just Christianity.
5. The curriculum is objective and no scripture is stated as fact. (a.k.a. NOTHING is forced down ANYONE'S throat)
If the creationists did that, there would be no outrage. But they won't do that.

[reply]

9/05/08

clioandme

Yes, voodooKobra, that about sums it up. Now do you think the Christian right wing in this country could live with all of that? Or would they demand free speech rights for their children to proselytize in school?
9/05/08

timethief

@voodookobra
Nice summation. I agree with it.
9/05/08

voodooKobra

It's not about the children being allowed to proselytize, but they're insecure about their "god of the gaps."

As science gets more advanced, there is less room for God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. This leads to a rise in atheism, which scares the shit out of some churchgoers. Then they decide to attack science by teaching religion in a science classroom.
9/05/08

kristilinauer

Well, Mark, I'm part of that Christian right wing that you're referring to, and I support the teaching of religion in school. I don't know how my views stack up against other Christians, but I certainly don't think it's a black and white issue, just like there are some atheists who would fight to the death before they allowed their child to even HEAR about other religions in school.

Edited to add: I don't support teaching religion in school, I support teaching ABOUT the various world religions in school, and allowing children to learn about the basic tenets of each religion, and how that religion has shaped the country and culture.
9/05/08

clioandme

I'd see the problem in terms of being able to develop a curriculum in which a multiplicity of viewpoints could be expressed. Atheism would only be one of those viewpoints.

Edited to add: I wrote the above before you commented, Kristi. Have a look at that Obama speech (linked above) if you haven't already. He points to the problems of the secular left and the religious right and how to get over it already.
9/05/08

voodooKobra

Kristi: You're mistaken.

Atheists are typically nonviolent. (I'm the exception.) I'm undoubtedly the most radical atheist on BC. Now read my post above. Does that sound like "no my kids must be ignorant!!!" to you?
9/05/08

clioandme

Well, voodoo, we've already established that Palin uses a different dictionary than the rest of us, so who knows. www.npr.org/blogs/visibleman/2008/09/your_pocket_guide_to_speaking_1.html
9/05/08

kristilinauer

voodoo, I wasn't speaking literally, but figuratively. There are definitely some atheists, agnostics, and people of every religion who would absolutely throw a fit if their child was taught about another religion in school. To single out Christians may be convenient, but it's not accurate. A simple perusing of this thread will prove my point.
9/05/08

voodooKobra

Well, read my post above. READ IT.

Atheists aren't intolerant of religion. Atheists are intolerant of mandatory religion or religion posing as science.

Let's assume there is a God. Can we test and verify his existence? No? Then it isn't science. Keep it out of the science class. An impartial religious studies ELECTIVE? No problem. Hell, I might even take the class just for the sake of my own knowledge.

Freedom of religion is in the Constitution, and also applies to freedom from religion. After all, if you have freedom to pick your religion, you retain the right to have no religion at all.
9/05/08

csiunatc

Just like any other group, there are intolerant Atheists too.

But i digress.
9/05/08

voodooKobra

But it's not something that occurs with such frequency that it deserves pointing out in the context of THIS conversation.
9/06/08

voodooKobra

Are you going to continue the discussion here or try to ignore it?
9/06/08

csiunatc

not ignoring, just see no point in discussing that issue at all.

Apparently you think most atheists are tolerant, I've seen many that are not. In fact, I've heard a lot of atheists be quite rabid when it comes to any form of religion, being both dismissive and condescending to those that do believe.

Your view is opposed to mine,
9/06/08

MadameX

"But it's not something that occurs with such frequency that it deserves pointing out in the context of THIS conversation."

Voodoo, the legal actions on this subject don't bear out what you're saying. Most of the key litigation on this issue is initiated by non-Christians who object to their children being exposed to what they perceive as religious indoctrination.
9/06/08

voodooKobra

csi: Likewise, I've encountered many Christians who are very intolerant. However, I didn't feel that it was worth mentioning before this point because you'll find intolerant people in every crowd. Even those liberal tree-hugging pacifists.

MadameX: So if I object to someone telling me that their god created the universe in a science classroom, I'm intolerant? (I'm just looking for clarification.)
9/06/08

MadameX

I'm not talking about tolerance or intolerance (which, by the way, I believe are among those meaningless buzzwords introduced purely to inject emotion into arguments). You seemed to be suggesting that it was Christian parents who were most likely to react badly to their children being exposed to other religions in school--apologies if that's not what you meant. If it IS what you meant, the legal history on this issue doesn't bear it out.
9/06/08

voodooKobra

I have no idea how you made that interpretation, but I didn't mean that at all.

My first post in this thread was a list of workable guidelines in which a religious studies ELECTIVE would not anger atheists. At all.

Every other post was pretty much arguing with Kristi and CSI.

9/05/08

crkian

My eldest sons (5 and 6) do religion, Im not religious and would have preferred the option of them taking it. I have ended up reading the bible to answer their questions.

[reply]

9/06/08

acousticguitarist

Chris, I used to read the Bible a lot

If you feel you need to skip what I call the 'silly bits' just read them the Sermon on the Mount. That will mean you can bypass whoever begot whoever, who killed who and the stuff that has been so twisted that you may as well read it in Uzbekistani. There's enough in the Mount Sermon to give kids a good foundation about what is at the core of Christianity. I know by saying the above I am opening myself up to criticism, but it's nice for kids to be informed in some way about Jesus and the principles he stood for. If they fail a religion test it doesn't really matter, what is important is that get a good simple overview that is practical, minus the superstition, elitism and fear. I have kids, they know what God isn't, that's for sure and they comfortably mingle with kids from every faith and accept the unity in diversity. I personally had to withdraw from reading my kids many of the Bible stories because I felt they didn't reflect what I call Christian principles.
9/06/08

crkian

Im not going to be reading them any of the bible. I only read it to answer any questions from what they were taught at school. I don't want to read them parts of the bible as its not something I believe in, I will just answer any questions and let them decide themselves what they want to follow. Much like football, I didnt preach about other football teams as I didnt want to, in the end they ended up supporting teams I dont like but it was their choice and I didnt influence it.
9/06/08

csiunatc

Thats great, provide them with the knowledge they want and require. There is no need to read verse. Especially not at that age.

Far be it for me to tell you how to do this, but i do have a tip for promoting critical thinking around religion.

I've used a simplified Socratic method. Answer their questions with questions, young children respond really well to this and it forces them to think about what is being said, and not just memorizing.
9/06/08

acousticguitarist

Uhuh

I don't care if my kids fail religion, so long as their heads are screwed on...

but on a serious note...didn't you buy ledds strips and paint their bedrooms accordingly,...what sort of a supporter are you?
9/06/08

crkian

I wanted to paint their bedrooms but the wife wouldnt let me, they both just went away and decided to support arsenal and chelsea. They have their kits now. But my daughter says leeds leeds leeds all the time so I do have a bit of hope, still not sure what son number 3 wants to do.

I always answer questions with questions its just the way I am.

9/05/08

Sebastyne

Like in Sweden, I was taught the basics of each religion at school in Finland. Just so we know pretty much where people are coming from with their religious views. It wasn't supposed to be an in-depth description of any religion other than our own, Lutheran, and a couple of more major religions, as Finland is one of the countries with a very similar religious backgrounds of people. What I don't agree with as of now, is that the Lutheran religion had it's own study subject, called "religion", and it was fairly heavily supported all through school, as it is what we call "the religion of the government" which is a bit of a blaah really.

USA is known to be lawsuit-happy, so everything that is done there has to be thought twice about, and religion is one of the most sensitive topics out there. It, after all, deals with our immortal souls. What I would do in USA is to offer a voluntary course of religion with a signed contract telling parents that there may be issues that everyone doesn't agree with, and if they want their kids to learn a specific religion, they better see to it themselves.

[reply]

9/05/08

csiunatc

Sebastyne, Terve,

Religion when i took it in Sweden would have been described here as comparative religious studies. Didn't know that it was "lutheran" in finland. What did they call the comparative studies there? or was that part of the other classes.
9/05/08

Sebastyne

Hej på dig, Csiuntc. The comparative studies were part of the subject of "religion". It wasn't very comprehensive, I think "religion" started at the first grade (7 years of age) and carried on all through the grammar school to the 9th grade (16 yr.). The comparative part started probably around 13 years of age, when the whole subject turned into more of a study than a weekly Sunday school type of teaching. (It was never anything like you would expect to hear at "Bush-schools" but it was more biased than not.)

About 80% of Finns are members of the Evangelic-Lutheran church, the second biggest church is the Orthodox. The next most popular group, I would guess, is those without registered religion, like myself. I was born a Lutheran but left the church at the age of 21 I think. (It's possible from 15 years of age without parental approval.)
9/05/08

csiunatc

Different but the same, We started the comparative part right away.

Are they still forcing Finns to learn Swedish in school or did they stop that yet?
9/05/08

Sebastyne

Yes, but now you can select it as the third foreign language, when it used to be the first or second. That means everyone must learn some of it, but you no longer need to include it in your matriculation examination like you did when I was in that age over ten years ago. *sigh*

Sweden has always been more international than Finland, so the religion part needs more diversity straight away I suppose.

Oh btw, congrats on beating our sorry asses at Aussie rules football World Cup this week. You damned Swedes.
9/06/08

csiunatc

Aussie Rules... How the hell did that happen?,

One thing i learned on the ferry Stockholm-Helsinki a long time ago is never go head to head with a Finn..

Oh wait.. not enough Karjala on the field..
9/06/08

acousticguitarist

aussie rules is a religion in parts of australia, quite frankly i can't stand it

9/05/08

OK, I've read quite a few comments and will now respond.

First, I am a public school teacher in Texas. I teach 7th grade state history and world events. Politics cannot be avoided, especially in world events, which is a current events class and, at present we are trying to elect a President. Do I try to maintain an unbiased view? Yes. Is it easier since I am an Independent? Most of the time.

As far as comparative religion being taught in schools, an unbiased presentation is going to be difficult, but not impossible, to achieve -- regardless of the country or generally held beliefs of the majority. I am not opposed to teaching comparative religions in US schools as a means of achieving a better understanding of cultures. However, it will take someone who has an open mind, regardless of personal beliefs to do it. Historically and politically, beliefs have existed that were not right, but they are a matter of fact and we still teach them. Religions exist, as a matter of fact, and knowing facts has never harmed anyone.

As far as the teaching of religion being fraught with potential for litigation, so is the teaching of students with special needs -- more so than any other aspect of teaching, including comparative religion. Should schools give up doing that because the district might be sued? No. But neither should districts in the US take a "head-in-the-sand" approach to the myriad of beliefs that affect cultural development throughout the world. To do so cheats students out of better understanding others in an increasingly global community.

[reply]

9/05/08

csiunatc

Acwresearcher.

Great to hear you chime in.

You are right, it will take the right person. But i have faith in that education of the teachers can go a long way in achieving a much better base of teachers able to do this.

It will require that education takes on a holistic view, and that has to start with teachers, school officials and districts taking the stance that education can't be afraid of knowledge.
9/05/08

Sebastyne

That is a very good point there, the understanding other cultures. We all know that the last thing US needs is more ignorance.

9/06/08

annaswan

This is slightly off topic - but very much related in some ways. This country does something else that could be a hot topic of debate - the banning of certain books from our public school systems. The reason I added this here is because the first example that came to mind was the book and movie The Golden Compass. My youngest son had no interest in either UNTIL a Teacher at school told the whole class the book was loosely based on an anti-Christian work, and would not be allowed in the library. He ask me - “So, if it were based on a Christian work, we could read it?” I honestly did not have an answer.

I’ve never substituted at his school, nor did I know this particular Teacher outside the school system - so of course I went in search of answers regarding her statement to the class - and the school’s policy. The Principal handed me a list 16 pages long of banned material, and the book was on the list - but he quickly pointed out that so was the Holy Bible. (I'm still not sure what his intent was by pointing this out?) As for the Teacher’s statement to the class, she claimed she had made two separate statements, not one. She claimed she’d told the class - in a factual manner - the book is loosely based on a non-Christian work. Then later she said - the book will not be in the library.

[reply]

9/06/08

csiunatc

Banning books is just completely asinine as well. It follows the same principle. What are people afraid of.

And again, if there is "separation of church and state" how come the state funded schools can ban a book based on its religious merit?

It's a travesty to call it a library if its censored.
9/06/08

acousticguitarist

i saw the movie and the idea going around at the time it came out about it being anit-christian is absurd.

I think a few extremists got over excited and were suffering from an over abundance of the importance of Christians, they were coming from the point that 'if it's not Christian, it's anti Christian'. I think the idea of having an alcoholic polar bear was much more serious.

The role of Jesus is in no way endangered by such a book or movie.

I thought the whole cafuffle was very funny

what next, alcholic red pandas, that's a concern
9/08/08

Ravyn

Acoustic: The Golden Compass on its own isn't very bannable, you're right. It's the other two books in the trilogy that the censors jump on, and they do admittedly have a bit more by way of grounds for it; I figure they add the first just for completeness' sake.

I don't approve, but I do see where they're coming from.

9/06/08

poisonapplesauce

There are just far too many religions here, unlike many countries we do not have an official religion (though it has long been thought of that christian is the default). I hate the idea of separation of church and state because of how far this country has fallen IMO since we started cutting religion out, however I respect the rights of the other parents and therefore I attended catholic school and my children will attend catholic school until middle school when I think that they have developed enough of a moral compass from both home and there, that they are prepared to go to the public school system.

[reply]

9/06/08

globalgirl

Secular humanism is one of the most frequently taught religion in public schools.

Ugh.

[reply]

9/06/08

voodooKobra

WRONG-O!

Secular humanism isn't a religion. It's a belief system. No supernatural claims.
9/06/08

voodooKobra

Of course, that is a semantic difference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Secular humanism is clearly a philosophy, not a religion.

In the words of someone whose name I can't remember: "Philosophy is questions for which there are no answers. Religion is answers for which there are no questions."
9/06/08

IanThal

Secular humanism is the philosophy that the United States was founded upon-- at its essence, it argues that the dignity of the individual's conscience is paramount. It's a secular ethos that protects the free exercise of religion.

9/06/08

Also, Secular Humanism doesn't prevent following a religion. You can be a secular humanist and still have a religion.

[reply]

9/06/08

othellobloke

You're all a bunch of godless heathens.

I'm joking. Religion should be taught just to fill the time, and don't put our foot in our mouths when speaking in public or something like that.

[reply]

9/06/08

aminhers

its funny

[reply]

9/06/08

Speaking of banning books, I had a parent try to get Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry banned from our library and any teacher prohibited from teaching it because he claimed it promoted racism. Even when the library committee tried to explain to him that it was written by an African American author for the express purpose of exposing the prevalence of racism and the pain it causes, he didn't care because it had the N word in it and should never be taught.

We asked him how a portrayal of how the world worked at the time period being written about could possibly be written without using that word and he said it shouldn't be written about at all. That part of history should not be studied because it only taught people how to hate. He was invited to sit in on classes in which the book was taught, and he heard the students express their disgust and horror with how the young black children were treated and how it changed their perspectives, but he said that no white teacher could possibly understand or teach that book without teaching racism.

Pretty soon, we won't be able to teach anything in schools because someone will find it offensive. No religion, a sanitized version of history, only "non-offensive" books and who decides what which books are ok? In the end, the book did not get pulled from the library, but teachers were "encouraged" not to teach it anymore, and the parent's child did not have to read the book with the rest of the class.

Oh, I forgot, the child was devastated by her parent's decision and read the book anyway because she wanted to know the past of her people and wanted others to know what courage it took for people to persist and still prosper under adverse conditions. She was an impressive child for a fourth grader. To me, teaching about other religions is just as equally important because how can a person make informed judgments about the rest of the world if they don't even have the background necessary to understand the basic culture and values of the society. Studying Buddhism will not make a good Christian a Buddhist any more than reading a book about children experiencing racism will make children racist. If anything, that book taught the dangers of racism and ensured that no child in that class would ever call another child the N. word without at least having some knowledge of the other child's perspective and pain. They identified with the young girl Cassie and were angered by her treatment, quite a positive result of reading the book, I thought.

[reply]

9/06/08

csiunatc

We had a class in college .. 4 hours discussing racism and racist language, and i almost got kicked out of class for using the N word instead of referring to it as "the N word"

When you are so afraid of a word that you cant use it in an academic discussion ABOUT that word.. you've lost sight of what is really important. And the word has taken on a power greater than the views that it represents.
9/06/08

voodooKobra

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HAGc521SAo
9/06/08

csiunatc

Carlin was the all time unequaled king of the word list.. Every time i see him do that i am amazed.

And he is absolutely right.. There are no bad words. It's the context.

9/06/08

Forgot to mention this book was taught to "gifted" elementary students had had been for over 10 years until one single parent complained.

[reply]

9/06/08

imadd

As I mentioned in another discussion, its just Allah/God protecting religions especially Islam.

[reply]

9/06/08

voodooKobra

What?
9/06/08

kristilinauer

Huh? I would think that you, as a Muslim, would want people to understand the basic teachings of your religion.

9/06/08

IanThal

Within the United States, we have a situation where we have both a substantial minority of either fundamentalist or aggressively proselytizing sects as well as an establishment clause placing a wall between church and state-- as a consequence we have long-standing tensions on these issues.

While my public school education included learning about ancient Greco-Roman mythology (taught with a certain amused contempt for their "non-scientific" world view) in elementary school, and our high school social studies classes required we study religion in historical context, it hardly made students more tolerant unless they were by nature tolerant and came from families that taught religious tolerance.

For example, in one class I had to spend the whole year studying a single country (in my case, Thailand) so I had to write a report on Buddhism; however, when it came to students who had taken European countries as their assignment, they often did their report not on the Christianity as it was generally practiced in that country, but as it was practiced in the Church they went to.

In the meantime, when, in our ancient history class, the two Jewish students were asked to give a presentation on Judaism, much of the reaction was shock that we were still around and hadn't found Jesus.

[reply]

9/06/08

p001b0y

I'd like to take a stab at your original question. I do not believe that it is a fair statement to say, in general, that "Americans are against it". I'm pretty sure the country is fairly split evenly in the for and against camps although you did seem to spark a pretty good debate so if that was your intent, then "Good Job"!

The First Amendment of our constitution provides Freedom of Religion (amongst other things) for United States citizens and Jefferson's intent when establishing the freedom of religion clause was to create a barrier between government and religion--commonly referred to as separation of church and state. For our European counterparts, the concept of a State Religion (like the Church of Sweden or the Church of England) is something that has existed for centuries but in this country, a State Religion is expressly prohibited by constitutional law. To someone with Libertarian leanings like myself, the logic seems to be fairly simple. If there is a separation of church and state implied or explicitly defined in the constitution, then if you want to teach religion in the government-run and taxpayer-funded schools, repeal the first amendment or amend the constitution first and ratify by public vote. It isn't a religious issue so much as a constitutional issue.

[reply]

9/06/08

ThomasCSlater

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

9/06/08

@p001b0y-

First, many people contributed to the drafting of the Constitution itself, but it was James Madison, the so-called "Father of the Constitution," not Thomas Jefferson, who drafted most of the first ten amendments, which later became the US Bill of Rights.

I'm not quite sure why one presumes that any mention of religion in an American public school classroom is an automatic violation of the 1st Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion. No one who has commented on this forum, particularly those of us from the US, has advocated that a religion be established. Teaching religious tenents (the theoretical basis of a religion as a matter of fact) is totally different from teaching religious doctrine (the theological basis of a religion which adherents believe MUST be observed to achieve absolution, which varies by not only religion, but also by sect). That is the question being debated here. Doctrine, indeed must be kept out of the classroom. No one should be allowed to take a captive audience and teach anything as the absolute truth in the classroom. Doctrinal instruction must be left up to parents' and students' personal choices. However, to totally ignore the religious ideas of other cultures makes about as much sense as ignoring political ideas with which we don't agree. Teaching about them doesn't make any one religion or any one political idea right, but not teaching about them doesn't make them go away. It also does little to promote tolerance to not teach something simply because someone might become offended. And, as I recall, tolerance of others and their beliefs is a basic tenent of most every religion.

[reply]

9/07/08

kristilinauer

"First, many people contributed to the drafting of the Constitution itself, but it was James Madison, the so-called "Father of the Constitution," not Thomas Jefferson, who drafted most of the first ten amendments, which later became the US Bill of Rights."

He wasn't talking about the Constitution or the First Amendment. He was talking about the phrase "separation of church and state", which was a phrase coined by Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

I'm absolutely shocked at how many Americans think that phrase is located somewhere in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
9/07/08

voodooKobra

Unfortunately, you're right. There is no clause that jumps out and says "Government and Church should remain entirely separate" in the Constitution.

BUT

You're ignoring the Supreme Court rulings.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

No, voodoo, I'm not ignoring anything.

I was simply pointing out to acwresearcher, who was trying to correct p001b0y by saying that he has given credit to the wrong author, that in fact, p001b0y was correct in his information.
9/07/08

voodooKobra

You might not be ignoring them, but your post was worded in a way that made it sound like the separation of church and state does not exist at all in our laws.
9/07/08

kristilinauer

Nope, I wasn't ignoring it...just point out the ignorance of most Americans.

I have polled people before with the question "Where is the phrase "separation of church and state" found?" Most of them answer, without even blinking an eye, "The Constitution!"

Maybe instead of discussing whether or not religion should be taught in school, we should be asking why in the world the basics aren't being taught!

9/07/08

ttiger

for me no god, Allah or any others gods believer should be allowed in active politic!

[reply]

9/07/08

kristilinauer

Is that supposed to be a sentence? Or are you practicing some sort of free association therapy prescribed by your therapist?

Edited to add:
Ahhh..well, that's a little better.

Unfortunately, your views are quite contradictory to the views of our founding fathers.
9/07/08

ttiger

usually my girlfriend translate all my text, but unfortunately she's sleeping

9/07/08

voodooKobra

[reply]

9/07/08

@kristilinauer

I'm sorry if I have lost touch with reading the English language, but it sure appeared from p001b0y's post that he was attributing the "establishment" clause to Jefferson when he wrote "Jefferson's intent when establishing the freedom of religion clause was to create a barrier between government and religion--commonly referred to as separation of church and state." Yes, Jefferson wrote a letter in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists that contains the now familiar, but regularly misused, phrase "the separation of church and state." Jefferson was also the author of The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which he proposed in 1779, but was not passed in the state until 1786. It was an influence on the 1st Amendment, but it too does not contain this phrase. It only ever appear in the 1802 letter. If one wishes to quote from something, one should at least clarify the source, and since p001b0y was not clear, perhaps he might be so kind as to clarify his reasoning behind alluding to a separate Jefferson source (which he does not cite) while writing about the 1st Amendment -- which was not specifically written by Jefferson, but rather Madison.

[reply]

9/07/08

p001b0y

No No...you are correct. I was thinking of the Danbury Baptist letter from Jefferson when I started typing and then mixed up my references. Thanks for indirectly reminding me why I was a Music major.
9/08/08

kristilinauer

I'm glad to know that you are familiar with the history and origin of "separation of church and state."

Unfortunately, you are in the minority, as most Americans believe that that phrase is found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

After studying the history of "separation", including the Constition, the Declaration of Independence, the records of rough drafts of such documents, letters written by the framers of the Constitution, as well as the Constitutions of the original states, including rough drafts of such documents, I am absolutely astounded that anyone could interpret the First Amendment the way in which it is interpreted today.

After much study, it becomes evident that the intent was simply to protect religion from government interference. But today's interpretation, as has been ridiculously ruled upon and enforced by our Supreme Court, also promotes the idea that the intent was to protect government from religion. That is simply false, but has become the banner which most liberals carry in order to argue points of "separation."
9/21/08

IanThal

On the other hand, the Bill of Rights makes it very clear that as the state cannot establish a religion, nor can it promote a particular theological view point, particular set of religious rituals, or look upon one faith more favorably than others.

On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable for the state to promote religious pluralism, and tolerance, which could be learnt by means of classes on comparative religion-- whereupon the issue is whether or not the teacher is qualified to teach the subject-- and obviously, if the teacher is promoting a particular religion over others, then that would be a violation of the establishment clause.

9/07/08