Should religion be taught in public schools?

[S.J.]

I'm OK with religion being taught in school as long as atheists get to teach children there is no God

They already do.

OK children.....today we are going to learn the bible is a fairy tale and God is just made up by adults.

More like this.

 

[S.J.]

No, and neither should evolution.

Evolution is science. It needs to be taught.
.............and god created three periods of dinosaurs, each lasting tens of millions of years

Mankind evolved from a rodent

It's not settled science but it's taught as settled science and that is dishonest. "Man evolved from a rodent"? lol. Ok, how did the rodent get here? The argument against teaching religion is based on lack of proof. That's fine, let's apply the same standard to the teaching of evolution (lack of proof). Neither should be taught.

Common ancestor: This is what scientists believe the oldest known 'eutherian' looked like - an animal that gave birth to its own young

Juramaia sinensis

Now that you mention it, that DOES bear a striking resemblance to the Jake.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok so you are against religion being taught in school YET every time there is a thread where a teacher forced their students to do some kind of Islamic indoctrination class homework you have supported the teacher and the school.

 

[Meriweather]

It's not settled science but it's taught as settled science and that is dishonest.

Remember, evolution is taught as a theory, and the information that theory is based upon.

 

[rcfieldz]

Religion doesn't matter once the Earth is obliterated by nuclear bombs.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm OK with religion being taught in school as long as atheists get to teach children there is no God

Then let the children decide

If the students choose to study a religion, that is their choice. If students decide they want to study atheism, if there is enough interest, and a teacher willing to teach atheism as an elective, why not? Just not sure how a class on, "There is no God" is going to fill class time over the course of a year. To me it would be kind of like offering a class on, "There is no unicorn."

 

[Meriweather]

Religion is not to be taught because it discriminates against practitioners of other religions, other sects within the same religion, and those who practice no religion.

Isn't that like saying science majors discriminate against drama majors?

 

[JakeStarkey]

As long as the instructor does not overtly or subtly work for conversion.

My train of thought is that only those who are of that faith or denomination would choose to take that class as an elective. Catholic youth would choose the course on Catholicism; Lutherans would choose their course, etc.

No. The class would, if about Christianity, include all of its manifestations, not just one stream.

 

[JakeStarkey]

S. J. is dishonest in his approach to science.

He insists on definitions of terms that are not scientific.

 

[rcfieldz]

Can you say indoctrination?

 

[S.J.]

S. J. is dishonest in his approach to science.

He insists on definitions of terms that are not scientific.

Translation: He requires proof instead of opinion.

 

[Meriweather]

No. The class would, if about Christianity, include all of its manifestations, not just one stream.

You and I have two different visions. Mine is that any group of students could request any religion or denomination they wish as an elective. You seem to be thinking along the lines of a single class covering everything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

S. J. is dishonest in his approach to science.

He insists on definitions of terms that are not scientific.

Translation: He requires proof instead of opinion.

Your confirmation bias is merely opinion and you never now or ever be permitted your own facts and definitions.

 

[Agit8r]

Religion is not to be taught because it discriminates against practitioners of other religions, other sects within the same religion, and those who practice no religion.

Isn't that like saying science majors discriminate against drama majors?

Drama is not a matter of conscience.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. The class would, if about Christianity, include all of its manifestations, not just one stream.

You and I have two different visions. Mine is that any group of students could request any religion or denomination they wish as an elective. You seem to be thinking along the lines of a single class covering everything.

The class would be have to be objective and more comprehensive in scope. If Lutheran kids, for instance, wanted such a class, they could get it at their church on their own time with their own funds.

What you propose is similar to the what Latter-day Saints are entitled to, in Utah, release time in which they take "Seminary" classes at their own facilities next to campuses and receive school credit.

When the LDS proposed that in our districts, we immediately squashed it. The Baptists wanted to do the same thing and were turned back.

 

[S.J.]

S. J. is dishonest in his approach to science.

He insists on definitions of terms that are not scientific.

Translation: He requires proof instead of opinion.

Your confirmation bias is merely opinion and you never now or ever be permitted your own facts and definitions.

Your scientific conclusions are merely opinions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I follow the scientific conclusions, S. J., not your confirmation bias.

 

[S.J.]

It's not settled science but it's taught as settled science and that is dishonest.

Remember, evolution is taught as a theory, and the information that theory is based upon.

It's SUPPOSED to be taught as theory but if you read the text books and the test questions students are given, you will see that they present it as fact when it is (in fact) speculation.

 

[S.J.]

I follow the scientific conclusions, S. J., not your confirmation bias.

No, you follow like minded opinions. You are once again being dishonest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not understand the accepted definitions, terms, and facts, because you don't like what they say. Tough. They will not change, and you will no power about it.