CDZ Religion in Schools

[SingleVoyce]

I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion. That way we could possibly see the average high school student graduate with an ability to read and write coherently and a reasonable grasp of basic mathematics e.g. algebra and basic geometry. That would be an enormous improvement over what we have today.

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.

Oh yes, on paper it looks like the public school curriculum covers all of the core subjects and secondary subjects well and teacher workloads are managed beautifully. I view public education as a complete mess with teachers grappling with violent or inattentive students, low pay, Federally mandated common core requirements, administrations that pay themselves bonuses and lay off teachers etc, etc.

To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

As I, and I would dare say most members, am not a subcriber to the linked news outlet, I cannot comment on the article in question. If you would like me to comment on the article, I would suggest finding it on another site.

Sorry about that. Try this one:

Proposed Mex-Am Studies Text: Chicanos Want to 'Destroy' Society

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion. That way we could possibly see the average high school student graduate with an ability to read and write coherently and a reasonable grasp of basic mathematics e.g. algebra and basic geometry. That would be an enormous improvement over what we have today.

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.

Oh yes, on paper it looks like the public school curriculum covers all of the core subjects and secondary subjects well and teacher workloads are managed beautifully. I view public education as a complete mess with teachers grappling with violent or inattentive students, low pay, Federally mandated common core requirements, administrations that pay themselves bonuses and lay off teachers etc, etc.

To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

 

[SingleVoyce]

I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion. That way we could possibly see the average high school student graduate with an ability to read and write coherently and a reasonable grasp of basic mathematics e.g. algebra and basic geometry. That would be an enormous improvement over what we have today.

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.

Oh yes, on paper it looks like the public school curriculum covers all of the core subjects and secondary subjects well and teacher workloads are managed beautifully. I view public education as a complete mess with teachers grappling with violent or inattentive students, low pay, Federally mandated common core requirements, administrations that pay themselves bonuses and lay off teachers etc, etc.

To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion. That way we could possibly see the average high school student graduate with an ability to read and write coherently and a reasonable grasp of basic mathematics e.g. algebra and basic geometry. That would be an enormous improvement over what we have today.

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.

Oh yes, on paper it looks like the public school curriculum covers all of the core subjects and secondary subjects well and teacher workloads are managed beautifully. I view public education as a complete mess with teachers grappling with violent or inattentive students, low pay, Federally mandated common core requirements, administrations that pay themselves bonuses and lay off teachers etc, etc.

To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

 

[SingleVoyce]

I'm saying give the teachers a break. Let them focus on the core subjects by eliminating non critical subjects such as religion. That way we could possibly see the average high school student graduate with an ability to read and write coherently and a reasonable grasp of basic mathematics e.g. algebra and basic geometry. That would be an enormous improvement over what we have today.

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.

Oh yes, on paper it looks like the public school curriculum covers all of the core subjects and secondary subjects well and teacher workloads are managed beautifully. I view public education as a complete mess with teachers grappling with violent or inattentive students, low pay, Federally mandated common core requirements, administrations that pay themselves bonuses and lay off teachers etc, etc.

To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

 

[FA_Q2]

High School, by definition as "secondary" schooling, is not designed to "teach the basics", but rather expand on them. The "basics" are designed to be taught in "primary" schooling (elementary and middle/junior high). The labeling as "primary" and "secondary" schooling is for a reason. Stop trying to lay the responsibility where it does not exist.
To a large degree this problem would be solved, in most situations, if the control where to be placed back where it, in my opinion, belongs; with the various States, and local Districts. Get the Feds, and their mandates, out of education, and you will see much more accountability, because those "controling" what the students are taught, are your neighbors.

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

How is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?

 

[320 Years of History]

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

How is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?

Well, anyone who actually clicks on the "Modesto" link and reads the study will see immediately why its not anecdotal at all. The "Modesto" document provides an empirical, statistically valid basis for expecting Modesto, CA's outcomes are repeatable and that the correlations drawn are valid. Additionally, "Modesto's" authors make a point of discussing what can and cannot rightly be inferred from the results they found.

Unlike the content SingleVoyce shared from The Texas Observer, what I shared was a study that produced information and conclusions that are not merely anecdotal. The study presents conclusions and ideas that one can have an intellectually cogent and rigorous basis for accepting and extrapolating to circumstances and locales beyond Modesto, CA.

That's in sharp contrast with the Observer article which is merely circumstantially observational, but far from predictive and telling in a rationally supportable way. I saw in the Texas piece nothing that approached the degree of intellectual integrity in its themes that the authors of "Modesto" provided by also addressing the inferential limits of their work. Heck, "Proposed Mexican-American Studies Textbook: Chicanos Want to ‘Destroy This Society’" didn't even document a research or analytical methodology. It did not for clear reasons: it's not a research piece, it's a depiction of a set of events and its author uses those events to "grind an axe." To that end, it is rightly called an editorial, and in that regard, it's even less rigorous, and thus less credibly persuasive, than is the inductive argument found in "Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools," which at least is based on rigorous research similar to that performed by the "Modesto" authors.

So that's how "Modesto" is more than anecdotal. The "Mosdesto" paper is in the league of writings that counts as factual information that can be used to form an opinion, whereas "Textbook" is in the league of writings that identifies one writer's opinion based on anecdotal observations.

 

[Fishlore]

I think it's good for kids to have some sort of basic knowledge of the tenets of the foremost of our world religions.

But I think they should be more focused on technical aspects of math, language, geography until graduation. Having a term of world religion would be a good thing in high school or even middle school, as well as a term of speech. It just helps to round them.

But I'm not a big fan of federally funded public education period, and don't believe there's a formula for education of the masses that I would ever want to adhere to. I prefer parents to control what their children are taught, by whom. Local control of education. At the local level, people generally have no problem with the clergy teaching their kids. And those who do, can hire someone else.

My closed minded ignorance, as you call it, can't hold a candle to your misinformed discourtesy. You seem unaware that public schools are government funded and therefore are subjected to the First Amendment concernting the establishment of religion regardless of what local parents might wish to see taught. Your sweeping generalization that "t the local level, people generally have no problem with the clergy teaching their kids" carries your error a step further and suggests that your experience has been gained in some homegeneous and isolated community.

Your post makes clear that you are not a big fan of federally funded public education. Perhaps you should attempt to withdraw your community and your state. It isn't compulsory, you know. Insulting those who disagree with your extreme views doesn't strengthen them.

 

[SingleVoyce]

If you want to get an idea of how badly such an idea can go if turned over to the states, here's a good model:

Mexican American textbook incites controversy

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

How is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?

It's not. They're exactly the same IMHO.

 

[SingleVoyce]

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

How is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?

Well, anyone who actually clicks on the "Modesto" link and reads the study will see immediately why its not anecdotal at all. The "Modesto" document provides an empirical, statistically valid basis for expecting Modesto, CA's outcomes are repeatable and that the correlations drawn are valid. Additionally, "Modesto's" authors make a point of discussing what can and cannot rightly be inferred from the results they found.

Unlike the content SingleVoyce shared from The Texas Observer, what I shared was a study that produced information and conclusions that are not merely anecdotal. The study presents conclusions and ideas that one can have an intellectually cogent and rigorous basis for accepting and extrapolating to circumstances and locales beyond Modesto, CA.

That's in sharp contrast with the Observer article which is merely circumstantially observational, but far from predictive and telling in a rationally supportable way. I saw in the Texas piece nothing that approached the degree of intellectual integrity in its themes that the authors of "Modesto" provided by also addressing the inferential limits of their work. Heck, "Proposed Mexican-American Studies Textbook: Chicanos Want to ‘Destroy This Society’" didn't even document a research or analytical methodology. It did not for clear reasons: it's not a research piece, it's a depiction of a set of events and its author uses those events to "grind an axe." To that end, it is rightly called an editorial, and in that regard, it's even less rigorous, and thus less credibly persuasive, than is the inductive argument found in "Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools," which at least is based on rigorous research similar to that performed by the "Modesto" authors.

So that's how "Modesto" is more than anecdotal. The "Mosdesto" paper is in the league of writings that counts as factual information that can be used to form an opinion, whereas "Textbook" is in the league of writings that identifies one writer's opinion based on anecdotal observations.

Certainly the outcomes are repeatable given the exact situation of Modesto. Extrapolating those findings to locales which do not fit such a profile is not valid. In order to get the outcome that Modesto experienced, the local school board must first develop a valid curriculum and then find and train teachers who are capable of teaching it correctly. I see nothing in the study that leads me to believe that schools in all areas would do so if left to their own devices.

Scholarly studies are great for scholars but, in academic areas involving human beings, do not always accurately reflect the messy realities of society.

The description of the Modesto experience is indeed factual but the extrapolation of that experience to the country at large is conjecture not fact. The "Teaching for Tolerance" article is interesting but still assumes that such a program could be implemented perfectly.

 

[320 Years of History]

the local school board must first develop a valid curriculum and then find and train teachers who are capable of teaching it correctly. I see nothing in the study that leads me to believe that schools in all areas would do so if left to their own devices.

WTF? Excuse me? What on Earth do you think schools do? Pull random people off street corners, declare them to be teachers and stick them in a room with the instruction "teach XYZ to the kids who come through the door?"

Are you suggesting that school systems do not find and train capable teachers, and that school districts refrain from doing so to the extent that you need some sort of study to convince you that any or most school districts/systems do/would indeed seek, hire and train capable teachers to teach a religion class, or any other class?

 

[koshergrl]

In fairness, some school systems will manage the added class offering well and others will mismanage implementing the additional course. That there will be variability in the quality of the implementation really doesn't have much to do with the question at hand: "Should religion classes be offered in public schools?". The implementation considerations are relevant, however, in determining whether school district A should implement religion classes.

I interpreted the question in light of the impact that such a class would have. In order for me to agree with the idea that religion classes should be offered, I would have to have reasonable expectations that such a class would improve our society by increasing the level of religious tolerance in the country. If the implementation of such a class does not have this outcome or some other outcome that is beneficial to our country then the additional cost of offering such a class would not be justified.

Unfortunately I do not believe that the current state of our society would support an implementation that would generate a beneficial result. Even if it was done completely at the local level, the localities that implemented in such a way as to have a beneficial result would almost certainly be populated to a large extent by students who were taught tolerance by their parents. The school districts that are populated by students who were not taught such tolerance at home would most likely develop courses that simply reinforced those beliefs.

Okay.

Red:
In an effort to provide a bit of critical thought on the matter, I offer the following:

• Issues Concerning Religious Tolerance and Diversity -- This is a discussion between an anthropologist and philosopher that provides a high level framework of the considerations in the offing of teaching religion in public schools. As with the content noted below, there are additional references that are well worth exploring if one is of a mind to develop a full picture view of the spectrum of factors and the relative weighting appropriate to each in light of their costs (financial and non-financial) and benefits.
  
• Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools -- This is a well developed inductive argument.
  
• Learning about World Religions in Modesto, California: The Promise of Teaching Tolerance in Public Schools -- This is an objective study that presents empirical evidence found through it's testing (methodology documented in the paper) that religious tolerance increased as a result of religion having been taught in one public school system.
  • "[W]e find that the [world religion] course had a positive impact not only on students’ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but also on students’ respect for the First Amendment and political rights in general."
• Promoting Tolerance | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization -- A summary of UNESCO's strategy for overcoming intolerance. (There's no point to reading this if one hasn't read the preceding documents)

Congrats to Modesto. They seem to have done it right. This is only an anecdote, however, and does nothing to remove my reservations about the implementation of such a program on a national level.

How is it any more or less an anecdote than your example?

Well, anyone who actually clicks on the "Modesto" link and reads the study will see immediately why its not anecdotal at all. The "Modesto" document provides an empirical, statistically valid basis for expecting Modesto, CA's outcomes are repeatable and that the correlations drawn are valid. Additionally, "Modesto's" authors make a point of discussing what can and cannot rightly be inferred from the results they found.

Unlike the content SingleVoyce shared from The Texas Observer, what I shared was a study that produced information and conclusions that are not merely anecdotal. The study presents conclusions and ideas that one can have an intellectually cogent and rigorous basis for accepting and extrapolating to circumstances and locales beyond Modesto, CA.

That's in sharp contrast with the Observer article which is merely circumstantially observational, but far from predictive and telling in a rationally supportable way. I saw in the Texas piece nothing that approached the degree of intellectual integrity in its themes that the authors of "Modesto" provided by also addressing the inferential limits of their work. Heck, "Proposed Mexican-American Studies Textbook: Chicanos Want to ‘Destroy This Society’" didn't even document a research or analytical methodology. It did not for clear reasons: it's not a research piece, it's a depiction of a set of events and its author uses those events to "grind an axe." To that end, it is rightly called an editorial, and in that regard, it's even less rigorous, and thus less credibly persuasive, than is the inductive argument found in "Teaching for Tolerance: The Case for Religious Studies in American Public Schools," which at least is based on rigorous research similar to that performed by the "Modesto" authors.

So that's how "Modesto" is more than anecdotal. The "Mosdesto" paper is in the league of writings that counts as factual information that can be used to form an opinion, whereas "Textbook" is in the league of writings that identifies one writer's opinion based on anecdotal observations.

I see your posts and I think, oh look, a well written, supported, and sourced argument...they'll never read it.

Sorry, aren't the idiots charming?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I can see it now. Global warming parted the sea for Moses who was really bisexual.

 

[320 Years of History]

I see your posts and I think, oh look, a well written, supported, and sourced argument...they'll never read it.

LOL Yes, that thought occurs to me as well. I just wish the folks who don't really read my posts would also not respond to them. LOL

TY for the compliments.

 

[320 Years of History]

Sorry, aren't the idiots charming?

Yes, well, charm is one of those things that requires neither intellectual rigor nor integrity. Indeed, some of the most entertaining and pleasant folks I know are mental midgets.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

why? because the religion I would want taught isn't what you would want taught....isn't what another person would want taught.

religion is your personal business and shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. and I certainly don't want some religious zealot imposing their so-called "morality" on any child. if you want your child to learn your religion send them to parochial school.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings.

Is that sort of comment necessary? or appropriate to the CDZ?

And no, religion should not be taught in school, simply b/c people have agendas and will teach the religions that fit that agenda.

 

[SingleVoyce]

the local school board must first develop a valid curriculum and then find and train teachers who are capable of teaching it correctly. I see nothing in the study that leads me to believe that schools in all areas would do so if left to their own devices.

WTF? Excuse me? What on Earth do you think schools do? Pull random people off street corners, declare them to be teachers and stick them in a room with the instruction "teach XYZ to the kids who come through the door?"

Are you suggesting that school systems do not find and train capable teachers, and that school districts refrain from doing so to the extent that you need some sort of study to convince you that any or most school districts/systems do/would indeed seek, hire and train capable teachers to teach a religion class, or any other class?

What I'm suggesting is that teaching a comparative religion course is not as easy as teaching English or history and also that this is not something that is currently included in college educational curricula so any teachers would have to go through unique training just for this particular course. Finding individuals who are free from religious prejudices and who are willing to undergo such training is not as easy as just saying it and, for the umpteenth time - there are many school districts in this country who would have no interest in teaching a fair and balanced course. You don't seem to be getting that message.

 

[jillian]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

why? because the religion I would want taught isn't what you would want taught....isn't what another person would want taught.

religion is your personal business and shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. and I certainly don't want some religious zealot imposing their so-called "morality" on any child. if you want your child to learn your religion send them to parochial school.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings.

Is that sort of comment necessary? or appropriate to the CDZ?

And no, religion should not be taught in school, simply b/c people have agendas and will teach the religions that fit that agenda.

there is nothing inappropriate about what I said. I didn't personally insult anyone. you just don't agree.

 

[koshergrl]

So, I've been thinking (I know, a dangerous thing to do), and I am wondering what people would think of an idea I have had for some time. So, here goes:

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

religion should only be taught in comparative religion classes and not as "religion" per se.

why? because the religion I would want taught isn't what you would want taught....isn't what another person would want taught.

religion is your personal business and shouldn't be imposed on anyone else. and I certainly don't want some religious zealot imposing their so-called "morality" on any child. if you want your child to learn your religion send them to parochial school.

"golden rule"?

how about treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. that certainly exists less in religious settings than it does in secular settings.

Is that sort of comment necessary? or appropriate to the CDZ?

And no, religion should not be taught in school, simply b/c people have agendas and will teach the religions that fit that agenda.

One of their agendas is to remove all reference to religion from all public places, and to turn American children into progressive acolytes. You do that by making it illegal for people to teach children about religion, and by removing all the trappings of religion from the public square, and by making it a "crime" to talk to kids about religion.

 

[regent]

My son's public high school taught a course in religion, a course in communism and a number of other electives. They were taught as any other historical course, be it in the Civil War or the Great Depression.