Should religion be taught in public schools?

[JakeStarkey]

Faith classes should not be subsidized by tax payer money.

 

[sealybobo]

Then go to church to learn this stuff. Why waste time teaching catholics about catholicism in school? Aren't there better things we could be spending our time on like math or science?

An elective class is just that: Elective. As part of the school day, perhaps some would prefer to learn more about their faith than singing or drawing. This, instead of adding to their school day by going somewhere else to take another class after regular school hours. Many of the schools in the District where I teach also have "Zero" periods for students who wish to take more than one elective. For the students who wishes to learn more about his/her religion, having a class during the school day makes sense and is more efficient when travel and homework time are factored in to picking a child up at school and taking him/her somewhere else.

I'm merely saying, if there is a demand, supply it. If no demand, no worries. I don't think people should freak out about students choosing to enroll in a religion class. Faith is a huge portion of many lives--more than evolution is for example. (I am NOT saying evolution should not be taught, but after graduating, who cares, because how does evolution (which moves so slowly) become a part of everyday life?) Faith is something about which many do care and is a part of everyday life.)

Just because an ancient superstition and wishful thinking is more important to the every day primitive uneducated person does not mean it is more important than science fact and evolution. The things we learned that prove evolution have also been used to cure diseases. Praying never did that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then go to church to learn this stuff. Why waste time teaching catholics about catholicism in school? Aren't there better things we could be spending our time on like math or science?

An elective class is just that: Elective. As part of the school day, perhaps some would prefer to learn more about their faith than singing or drawing. This, instead of adding to their school day by going somewhere else to take another class after regular school hours. Many of the schools in the District where I teach also have "Zero" periods for students who wish to take more than one elective. For the students who wishes to learn more about his/her religion, having a class during the school day makes sense and is more efficient when travel and homework time are factored in to picking a child up at school and taking him/her somewhere else.

I'm merely saying, if there is a demand, supply it. If no demand, no worries. I don't think people should freak out about students choosing to enroll in a religion class. Faith is a huge portion of many lives--more than evolution is for example. (I am NOT saying evolution should not be taught, but after graduating, who cares, because how does evolution (which moves so slowly) become a part of everyday life?) Faith is something about which many do care and is a part of everyday life.)

Just because an ancient superstition and wishful thinking is more important to the every day primitive uneducated person does not mean it is more important than science fact and evolution. The things we learned that prove evolution have also been used to cure diseases. Praying never did that.

You are simply ignorant, kid, and we can leave it at that.

 

[Meriweather]

Just because an ancient superstition and wishful thinking is more important to the every day primitive uneducated person does not mean it is more important than science fact and evolution. The things we learned that prove evolution have also been used to cure diseases. Praying never did that.

Ah, but we're not talking about "ancient superstition and wishful thinking." We are speaking of exploring and learning about an alternate dimension that interacts with our physical dimension. Some people dismiss alternate dimensions, but science seems to think they may be a very real possibility.

A quote by John Dewey comes to mind:
Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of the imagination.

 

[Meriweather]

Faith classes should not be subsidized by tax payer money.

Unless, of course, the taxpayer is in favor of it. Another thought: If science ever acknowledges a spiritual dimension is indeed as likely as the theory of evolution, would this change anyone's mind about whether or not it should be taught in school?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Faith classes should not be subsidized by tax payer money.

Unless, of course, the taxpayer is in favor of it. Another thought: If science ever acknowledges a spiritual dimension is indeed as likely as the theory of evolution, would this change anyone's mind about whether or not it should be taught in school?

Of course if the taxpayer is in favor of segregation that is OK, too. Read Santa Fe ISD and SCOTUS.

 

[Meriweather]

Of course if the taxpayer is in favor segregation that is OK, too. Read Santa Fe ISD and SCOTUS.

I spoke of what is being taught. You're speaking of who is being taught. Two different trains of thought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. They are integrated. Faith studies cannot be taught on tax payers time with tax payers money. That's where the LDS and Catholics get away with it: off campus religious place of studies taught by non-ISD staff.

 

[TimothysAlaska]

Then go to church to learn this stuff. Why waste time teaching catholics about catholicism in school? Aren't there better things we could be spending our time on like math or science?

An elective class is just that: Elective. As part of the school day, perhaps some would prefer to learn more about their faith than singing or drawing. This, instead of adding to their school day by going somewhere else to take another class after regular school hours. Many of the schools in the District where I teach also have "Zero" periods for students who wish to take more than one elective. For the students who wishes to learn more about his/her religion, having a class during the school day makes sense and is more efficient when travel and homework time are factored in to picking a child up at school and taking him/her somewhere else.

I'm merely saying, if there is a demand, supply it. If no demand, no worries. I don't think people should freak out about students choosing to enroll in a religion class. Faith is a huge portion of many lives--more than evolution is for example. (I am NOT saying evolution should not be taught, but after graduating, who cares, because how does evolution (which moves so slowly) become a part of everyday life?) Faith is something about which many do care and is a part of everyday life.)

Just because an ancient superstition and wishful thinking is more important to the every day primitive uneducated person does not mean it is more important than science fact and evolution. The things we learned that prove evolution have also been used to cure diseases. Praying never did that.

I look at it this way, let the religious believe the "why" we are here, and let science think and experiment the how the natural world works. And hopefully science and religion will never cross paths, because as history proves when religion fights science the ignorant win the majority of the time, and they had kept science down for centuries and prolonged the dark ages.

This is why teaching religion in schools is so dangerous. And one thing the religious do not realize, if they get what they want about teaching religion in schools, is how are they going to control it? They think that it will be taught about creationism but when people are put into the mix teaching such things, how can they be unbiased toward their own beliefs? Now I am not saying all teachers would be biased but enough of them would be, religion in schools will quickly turn into a biased toward whatever denomination or religion the teacher may believe. And we have indoctrination, even if they are unbiased, a child will always ask what they themselves believe, and it will influence children and since religious beliefs cannot be proved or verified it relies heavily on imagination. So you end up not really teaching the students useful things.

Now the religious will always talk about morales and virtue for the schools, but these things are scant in Christianity and seldom even spoke or thought about. There is a reason the churches studied and taught Greek philosophy because some of the works dealt exclusively with these ideas of morales and virtue while the bibles did not. In fact most of the earliest saints influenced Christianity to this day by plagiarizing those early Greek philosophers because there was nothing of that depth in their books.

Religion is dangerous, and as long as science keeps its distance from those ignorant of how it actually is, slowly society will swing toward science again and leave religion far behind.

 

[Meriweather]

I look at it this way, let the religious believe the "why" we are here, and let science think and experiment the how the natural world works. And hopefully science and religion will never cross paths, because as history proves when religion fights science the ignorant win the majority of the time, and they had kept science down for centuries and prolonged the dark ages.

This is why teaching religion in schools is so dangerous. And one thing the religious do not realize, if they get what they want about teaching religion in schools, is how are they going to control it? They think that it will be taught about creationism but when people are put into the mix teaching such things, how can they be unbiased toward their own beliefs? Now I am not saying all teachers would be biased but enough of them would be, religion in schools will quickly turn into a biased toward whatever denomination or religion the teacher may believe. And we have indoctrination, even if they are unbiased, a child will always ask what they themselves believe, and it will influence children and since religious beliefs cannot be proved or verified it relies heavily on imagination. So you end up not really teaching the students useful things.

Now the religious will always talk about morales and virtue for the schools, but these things are scant in Christianity and seldom even spoke or thought about. There is a reason the churches studied and taught Greek philosophy because some of the works dealt exclusively with these ideas of morales and virtue while the bibles did not. In fact most of the earliest saints influenced Christianity to this day by plagiarizing those early Greek philosophers because there was nothing of that depth in their books.

Religion is dangerous, and as long as science keeps its distance from those ignorant of how it actually is, slowly society will swing toward science again and leave religion far behind.

You begin with a false premise. First, I do understand that some Christian denominations completely eschew evolution. Most Christians do not. Second, Relgion did not keep science down. Many of the best scientists in the middle ages were Catholic priests or Catholic educated. If you are thinking of Galileo, the Church was fine with the theory (which Galileo said he couldn't yet prove) of the earth revolving around the sun. What they were not fine with was Galileo's insistent that every place in the Bible that suggested the sun revolved around the earth had to be changed. It was a situation of "The Bible says what the Bible says/What was written was written" versus The Bible must be correct! All the Church wanted was Galileo to present as theory what he said was theory--and to leave the Bible alone.

As it was said at the time: "The Bible teaches us the way to heaven, not how the heavens run." (Attributed to Cardinal Baronius)

Anyway, most faiths understand the distinction between the physical realm and the spiritual realm. We have no more problem with science and religion existing side by side than we have with math and sports existing side by side.

 

[Disir]

Faith is a huge portion of many lives--more than evolution is for example. (I am NOT saying evolution should not be taught, but after graduating, who cares, because how does evolution (which moves so slowly) become a part of everyday life?)

It's vitally important in the health/medical industry, food industry especially as it pertains to animals, etc.
Relevance of evolution: medicine

 

[TimothysAlaska]

I look at it this way, let the religious believe the "why" we are here, and let science think and experiment the how the natural world works. And hopefully science and religion will never cross paths, because as history proves when religion fights science the ignorant win the majority of the time, and they had kept science down for centuries and prolonged the dark ages.

This is why teaching religion in schools is so dangerous. And one thing the religious do not realize, if they get what they want about teaching religion in schools, is how are they going to control it? They think that it will be taught about creationism but when people are put into the mix teaching such things, how can they be unbiased toward their own beliefs? Now I am not saying all teachers would be biased but enough of them would be, religion in schools will quickly turn into a biased toward whatever denomination or religion the teacher may believe. And we have indoctrination, even if they are unbiased, a child will always ask what they themselves believe, and it will influence children and since religious beliefs cannot be proved or verified it relies heavily on imagination. So you end up not really teaching the students useful things.

Now the religious will always talk about morales and virtue for the schools, but these things are scant in Christianity and seldom even spoke or thought about. There is a reason the churches studied and taught Greek philosophy because some of the works dealt exclusively with these ideas of morales and virtue while the bibles did not. In fact most of the earliest saints influenced Christianity to this day by plagiarizing those early Greek philosophers because there was nothing of that depth in their books.

Religion is dangerous, and as long as science keeps its distance from those ignorant of how it actually is, slowly society will swing toward science again and leave religion far behind.

You begin with a false premise. First, I do understand that some Christian denominations completely eschew evolution. Most Christians do not. Second, Relgion did not keep science down. Many of the best scientists in the middle ages were Catholic priests or Catholic educated. If you are thinking of Galileo, the Church was fine with the theory (which Galileo said he couldn't yet prove) of the earth revolving around the sun. What they were not fine with was Galileo's insistent that every place in the Bible that suggested the sun revolved around the earth had to be changed. It was a situation of "The Bible says what the Bible says/What was written was written" versus The Bible must be correct! All the Church wanted was Galileo to present as theory what he said was theory--and to leave the Bible alone.

As it was said at the time: "The Bible teaches us the way to heaven, not how the heavens run." (Attributed to Cardinal Baronius)

Anyway, most faiths understand the distinction between the physical realm and the spiritual realm. We have no more problem with science and religion existing side by side than we have with math and sports existing side by side.

I really hope you are correct, I truly do. But it seems that religion with the masses goes with popular opinion and mob mentality. We see this all the time in topics of all sorts. All it takes is one false idea to gain traction and no matter the cooler heads of the religious establishment says there will be conflict. And the early church used Aristotle as the reigning authority for science and nobody questioned it.

I agree to a certain extant but the fickle way of religion and how it has evolved over the course of history shows that sometimes dangerous ideas prevail. Christians ideas and ideals have changed every generation to what we have today. Tattoos for instance were frowned upon, now they are acceptable. Predestiny, free will. I would rather just have religion concern itself with the why and have no influence whatsoever with the how.

 

[Meriweather]

I really hope you are correct, I truly do. But it seems that religion with the masses goes with popular opinion and mob mentality. We see this all the time in topics of all sorts. All it takes is one false idea to gain traction and no matter the cooler heads of the religious establishment says there will be conflict. And the early church used Aristotle as the reigning authority for science and nobody questioned it.

I agree to a certain extant but the fickle way of religion and how it has evolved over the course of history shows that sometimes dangerous ideas prevail. Christians ideas and ideals have changed every generation to what we have today. Tattoos for instance were frowned upon, now they are acceptable. Predestiny, free will. I would rather just have religion concern itself with the why and have no influence whatsoever with the how.

It takes a lot of time and effort to learn and understand religion in the context of the times. Your example of tattoos makes this point. When Leviticus was written, one of its intent was to keep people from following the practices of other religions. For example, during the time of Leviticus "cutting" and "tattoos" (same ancient word used for both practices), it was talking of the pagan practices of cutting oneself after the death of a loved one to provide life blood for its spirit. Other bodily markings also related to religious practices.

Today, tattoos are body art and personal expression. The Bible does not forbid body art and personal expression because it is no longer meant as a religious statement or belief.

Another example: Cremation. In earlier times there were people who were radically opposed to the idea of the resurrection of the body and life ever lasting. To voice their scorn for the ideology, they had their body cremated. Therefore, back then, cremation was forbidden by the Church because of the statement of intent. Today, cremation is common enough, and while a church or person may prefer burial, cremation is not forbidden because the reason for cremation is often a matter of economics, and there is no intent to deny the resurrection of the body (which, after all, does return to dust).

 

[aris2chat]

I really hope you are correct, I truly do. But it seems that religion with the masses goes with popular opinion and mob mentality. We see this all the time in topics of all sorts. All it takes is one false idea to gain traction and no matter the cooler heads of the religious establishment says there will be conflict. And the early church used Aristotle as the reigning authority for science and nobody questioned it.

I agree to a certain extant but the fickle way of religion and how it has evolved over the course of history shows that sometimes dangerous ideas prevail. Christians ideas and ideals have changed every generation to what we have today. Tattoos for instance were frowned upon, now they are acceptable. Predestiny, free will. I would rather just have religion concern itself with the why and have no influence whatsoever with the how.

It takes a lot of time and effort to learn and understand religion in the context of the times. Your example of tattoos makes this point. When Leviticus was written, one of its intent was to keep people from following the practices of other religions. For example, during the time of Leviticus "cutting" and "tattoos" (same ancient word used for both practices), it was talking of the pagan practices of cutting oneself after the death of a loved one to provide life blood for its spirit. Other bodily markings also related to religious practices.

Today, tattoos are body art and personal expression. The Bible does not forbid body art and personal expression because it is no longer meant as a religious statement or belief.

Another example: Cremation. In earlier times there were people who were radically opposed to the idea of the resurrection of the body and life ever lasting. To voice their scorn for the ideology, they had their body cremated. Therefore, back then, cremation was forbidden by the Church because of the statement of intent. Today, cremation is common enough, and while a church or person may prefer burial, cremation is not forbidden because the reason for cremation is often a matter of economics, and there is no intent to deny the resurrection of the body (which, after all, does return to dust).

skulls, cross bones, nazi symbols, gang signs, crosses, almost every tattoo can in someone's opinion be religious or ideological
to each person symbols have meaning, and not the same to everyone that sees them.