| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should religion be taught in schools? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 31 2005, 01:37 PM (1,205 Views) | |
| Post #1 Dec 31 2005, 01:37 PM |
|
|
OK - so, what does everybody think about that one? My thoughts - yes. I was raised as a Christian, but was taught evolution, Big Bang Theory, etc., in school (7th-12th grades -- don't know exactly what you call that time frame of education, but my point is it wasn't college [secondary]). Just so happens that my Science teachers were Christians too, and prefaced the course with, "You don't have to believe this, but this is what I have to teach." Had I not been exposed to those other thoughts on how the world came in to existence, I would have never had any idea those theories were out there. They didn't change my mind about how the world began, but it was very interesting to know what other people thought. The great part about it was -- I wasn't expected to BELIEVE they were true -- only to learn about them. In addition, some children are never exposed to any type of Christianity at home (or Judiasm, Buddhism, etc.) If they are not at least exposed to it in school, where are they going to find out? What are the chances they will grow up to seek any type of higher being? If they never had an opportunity to even think there was one, why would they seek one out? As we have discussed before, our children are already being robbed of a solid education as it is. And, I think that taking any type of religion out of the primary education programs would be a mistake. |
Civilian
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Dec 31 2005, 06:09 PM |
|
|
Religion IS being taught in school: secular humanism. The denial of God combined with the "practical" value systems that are taught amount to a religion. There is only one way to ensure that your kids are not taught substantial values that conflict with the values you want taught: private school, where you choose one whose values and religion (or nonreligion) match yours. It is time for the government to get out of the business of running education and only fund it. The religion in education controversy will evaporate once we realize this is the way to go. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Jan 1 2006, 02:28 AM | Son N Law |
|
Hmm... Well, I had planned to stay as far away from this forum as my cursor could possible keep me, as a matter of respect to friends and loved ones who aren't comfortable with my lack of religious beliefs, but I couldn’t resist expressing my thoughts about one thing in particular. I don't feel that the teaching of evolution in any way amounts to the denial of any gods. I myself held a belief in the Judeo-Christian God alongside a firm understanding of the evolution for many, many years. Any teacher who claims that evolution disproves the existence of a deity simply doesn't understand evolution. Allow me to share a quote from the ending of Darwin's The Origin of Species:
Now, granted, evolution isn’t very compatible with Adam and Eve, but I know more than a few very religious people who've studied evolution and simply cannot find a scientific way to deny it, but also retain every ounce of their belief that God got the ball rolling (I know: I used to be one of them). I think the problem comes from a confusion between evolution, the Theory of Natural Selection (which explains evolution, rests upon more solid evidence than any other scientific theory, and is the bedrock of every single aspect of modern biology and advanced medicine), and the biogenesis/abiogenesis hypotheses about the origins of life itself. That last one is where people start to get really upset, I think. And the fact of the matter is, it has little or nothing to do with evolution. And absolutely nothing to do with Natural Selection. So, I strongly feel that simply teaching evolution, as well as Natural Selection, in no way amounts to denying God. Abiogenesis is sort of starting to flirt with the idea, sure, but I know of no public school system in the U.S. teaching abiogenesis. As for the teaching of religion in school (and with all due apologies for the tangent), I have to agree that private school is the best course of action. I personally don't think it should be mandatory in public schools. And I certainly don't think there's room for religion in science class. That would be doing a disservice to religion and science in one fell swoop. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Jan 1 2006, 01:14 PM |
|
OK - for those of us without a dictionary vocabulary? What's secular humanism? I didn't understand your definition. Oh, wait. I think I understand now. So, you're saying that children are being taught about religion based on a common practical value system, without giving credit to any diety? Now that I've thought about this one a little more, (and reading SNL's post), I don't remember there being any kind of "religion" taught at all. Well, the schools still impose general rules about being nice to one another, not hitting each other, not calling each other names, etc., (in the elementary system, anyway), but not in any class. So, how, exactly do you mean? I want to understand. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Jan 1 2006, 01:33 PM |
|
Ya' know, you always do make a good argument, D! What the heck is biogenesis/abiogenesis? I have to agree that the theories you describe are more "scientific" in nature than any religious belief. But, as I said, I am very glad t have been exposed to them. Where does the "Big Bang" Theory come in? Is that a separate one? (Never paid attention in Science, either.) And, I have to agree that teaching those does not deny there being a God -- simply introduces an alternative to what the religious beliefs are (or incorporates them.) I also have to agree that religion doesn't need to be taught in a science class. Actually, I thought a lot about it after my first post. And, I don't remember any religion ever being taught. Except -- oh, wait -- in history, I seem to remember something about Buddhism and Hinduism. AH! Yes! My son just had an exam on the difference between those two in his history class! And, while those are arguably not "religions", they are still closer to religion than other subjects. Mythology (Roman, Greek, Egyptian), Islam in very general terms , those are being taught in the schools. (Yes, I'm thinking out loud and racking my brain to remember at the same time -- since I have one in 2nd grade and one in 9th, it makes it a little easier.) Plus, my 2nd grader just learned about Kwanzaa before the holiday. (I thought I'd faint when she said "Happy Kwanzaa" -- I don't really even know what that means, much less did I tell her, and she said she learned about it in school.) So, if you really think about it, religions are being taught in schools, in conjunction with the cultural history of a people. But, not Christianity. Also, in history class, we learned about the Roman Catholic Church, as it related to our history as a country. Hmm. And, the Puritans. MAN, I wish I'd paid more attention in school! See, I'm not saddled with a college education to confuse the issue on what's being taught in K-12. :lol: No, really, I have an Associate's degree, but that's it. OK - D - do you remember what we were taught in school? (Seeing as how we went to the same school system at the same time and all!) |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Jan 1 2006, 02:05 PM |
|
|
Secular humanism and practical morality include things like teaching students to use of condoms and how to use them in a relative moral vacuum. Sure they teach that it reduces the likelihood of disease or pregnancy, but they don't touch on the other moral consequences of sex. They also include moral equivalences that run counter to the religion and values of many. The Russian Revolution is not morally equivalent to ours. Terrorists are not "freedom fighters." Treating people differently because of their behavior is not the same vile thing as treating people differently because of their skin color. Yet, schools are teaching things like these in direct contravention of the values, morals, and religions of the parents of students. You cannot run a school without implanting a portion of a value system into your students. Unfortunately, many values have been outlawed in public schools while others are promoted. Government's job should be neither to promote religion nor create a system that is intentionally or unintentionally hostile to religion. There is no solution to this dilemma unless private education is made available to all. Government should fund education, but not conduct it. ______________________ My stance is in no way pro- or anti-evolution. IMO, Christianity (my religion) and science are in no way in conflict with each other. I find that a literal acceptance of the Creation story does not detract from the science of evolution. Nor do scientific inquiries disprove the Bible. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Jan 1 2006, 02:56 PM | Son N Law |
The very basic concepts of biogenesis and abiogenesis are locked in the words themselves. Biogenesis is the idea that life can only arise from life. Abiogenesis, in the modern sense, is the idea that organic compounds originally arose from inorganic compounds, and eventually led to life. Stanley Miller conducted a famous experiment in 1953, in which he did his best to recreate the atmospheric conditions of the early earth (water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia), given the best scientific data at the time, and send an electrical spark through it (representing lightning). The result was organic compounds, inluding amino acids, the building blocks of life. Since then, Miller's choice of composition has been called into question as slightly innacurate, and again, it should be pointed out that the result was organic comounds, not organisms. His experiments certainly didn't prove that organic compounds arose spontaneously on earth, but they did demonstrate that the leap from inorganic to organic can occur naturally. From amino acid to self-replicating DNA is another matter altogether. Some people believe that this required a guiding hand. Chemists and biologists tend to believe that the very shape and nature of the molecules will eventually lead to self-replication. But again, I think it's important to note that this has nothing -- nothing -- to do with evolution, other than the fact that many people who are interested in evolution are also interested in abiogenesis. Evolution simply has no interest in life until it's already here and replicating. "God made it? It happened naturally? It has no effect on us either way -- just give us the DNA when it's ready to start making babies."
Ohm'goodness, yes! Completely and utterly separate. Big Bang Theory relates to the shape and origins of the cosmos, not biology. And it should be noted that Big Bang is being refined and explored further to deal with a few problems that it creates. I find the Inflationary Model way more consistent and workable. But Big Bang does have a lot going for it. For one thing, it does the most important thing that any scientific theory can do: it makes predictions. These predictions are tested. If they hold up, it strengthens the theory. If they don't hold up, the theory is completely thrown out the window, unless it still works under very special conditions, like Newtonian physics. None of Big Bang's predictions have been disproven yet, which is why it's still around in one form or another (even Inflationary Theory is an outcropping and refinement of Big Bang; not a supplantation). The one big prediction that it made to begin with was the Cosmic Microwave Background. At first, no one could find any evidence of the CMB, so Big Bang was tossed around as a kind of interesting idea with little merit, other than the fact that it explained the observed expansion of the universe pretty well. Then the CMB was discovered -- purely accidentaly -- in 1965, and Big Bang really gained a foothold. Interestingly enough, Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the initial conditions of the 'verse, despite what anyone would have you believe. Scientists speculate, of course, because speculation is fun, but the theory itself isn't concerned at all with anything before 10^-43 seconds after the quote-unquote "bang" itself. And Big Bang Theory has nothing whatsoever to say about God.
But Kwanzaa isn't a religious holiday :P
You know, to be honest, I don't -- at least in science class. Especially Biology. I got sent to the office a lot during Biology, so it's all a blur. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Jan 1 2006, 03:33 PM | Son N Law |
You know, I seriously wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on why. And to what extent government should intervene in the formation of curriculum? I'm of the same opinion myself, of course, but it would be interesting for me to find out if we took different trains to the same conclusion. Me? I personally think people should be exposed to different -- and more importantly conflicting -- ideas. To be honest, though, I'm not sure when they should be exposed to them, and I don't necessarily think a public school system is the right place for this. It raises the question, though: "When is it appropriate for one to read Das Kapital and Mein Kampf?" Because I really do think it's important for Americans to read books like these. I've read both. Enjoyed the former. Don't agree with a word of it, but I enjoyed it. Found the latter to be a boring diatribe of little interest other than the fact that it sort of revealed how someone can become filled with such destructive hatred. The point, though, is that although I don't think capitalism is perfect in practice, I do think it's the best system of ecomonics possible because I've explored the alternatives thoroughly and found them lacking. And yes, as has been brought up on this forum many times already, freedom can be messy. But the alternatives to freedom are a whole dang lot worse. Without truly exploring these alternatives, it's impossible, in my opinion, to really know why you believe what you believe. That said, I don't think government should force the teaching of Das Kapital and Mein Kampf. In fact, I don't think anyone should be forced at any point in time to read either. But I do think they're books that everyone should read. The problem comes, I think, from the fact that it's hard to teach something without coming across as advocating it. It's tough to explain that "these people think of themselves as freedom fighters" without coming across as sympathetic to them. And at the root of this problem, I believe, is the fact that education these days amounts to "teaching people what to think" rather than "teaching people how to think. Within the "what to think" paradigm, exposure to... how did I put it? "different -- and more importantly conflicting -- ideas" can get dangerous real quick-like. And to be honest, I'm not sure the government is really equipped to lead a "how to think" system of education. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Jan 1 2006, 03:53 PM |
|
|
The answer to most of your questions should be determined by the values of the parents. It is, after all, they who are raising the child, only with the help of the school. Under the current system, the school system (the government) is supplanting the parents in this effort. That was not much of a problem, years ago, when communities were fairly monolithic. I think that's the main reason we did not see a lot of these lawsuits earlier in our history. The community at large approved of the values and religion being taught in the schools. We need to return to the day when the school reflected the values of the community that it belongs to. But, today, communities with common values no longer follow geopolitical lines. So, neither should schools. There are plenty of accrediting organizations out there who can make sure that schools maintain academic standards, without the government having to perform this function. There are also plenty of organizations doing a bang-up job af developing goals and objectives and others developing standardized tests to measure achievement of these goals. Right now, post-secondary schooling is the model that most closely follows what I propose. The only significant difference is universal funding. However, since there are already quite a number of governmental funding programs, used even at religious colleges, I don't see any insurmountable legal hassles. All that is required is the political will to do it. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Jan 1 2006, 04:39 PM | Son N Law |
|
Good points all. And unless we could find a way to remove values from education altogether (which would, in my opinion, by the ideal, whether it's attainable or not), I think that's would be the way to go. That is, as long as we could find a way to ensure that all students receive a good understanding of mathematics, science, grammar, and history that's as ubiased as possible. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Jan 1 2006, 05:28 PM |
|
| History is a perfect example of why education cannot be values-free. Simply choosing what to report in history and what terminology to use are value judgments. They will be made. We've just got to stop subjecting kids to values with which their family vehemently disagrees. As long as we economically force kids to go to schools chosen by government agencies these values conflicts will exist. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #12 Jan 1 2006, 06:15 PM | Son N Law |
Another excellent point, and I'll flat out admit that I have no idea of how one would go about getting around that fact. And of course, this isn't limited strictly to history. It applies to all social studies (and I hope I'm not offending anyone by refusing to call them social sciences). But I do think history is probably the most problematic of all subjects. We're getting getting way off-topic here, though. I don't think religion has much to do with whether or not we teach our kids about the War of Northern Aggression ;) |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #13 Jan 1 2006, 06:25 PM |
|
|
We are not really getting off-topic. When religion has no place in schools, schools naturally work against the values of the religious. My point is that we should teach religion and values in school. But, you cannot teach religion in a government school and teaching values, in a government school, that might conflict with some families' values is fraught with danger. By forcing poor families to send their children to schools that ignore the religious aspect of their lives and that teach values in direct contradiction with their religions is, in fact, governmental interference with those families' right to free exercise of religion. The only solution is to remove the running of schools from the government. It should continue to fund education, though. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Jan 1 2006, 07:10 PM | Son N Law |
|
I guess the only real objection to government funding of private schools with religious curricula is that you would be, in effect, forcing some people to support via their tax dollars the teaching of beliefs they don't subscribe to. So, really, we're almost right back where we started from. You know what? I'm digging this discussion. It's making me rethink some things, and I like anything that makes me rethink things. Maybe it's time we dropped history -- maybe all social sciences -- from primary and secondary education curricula altogether. Maybe, just maybe, we need to be teaching our kids linguistics, science, and mathematics, and perhaps some music and arts electives at the secondary level, and we should leave the teaching of social studies until the post-secondary level, when they're more equipped to make up their own minds. As much as it pains me to say it, maybe we need to leave literature out of primary and secondary education, too. Because, seriously, most students don't take a thing from it anyway. They certainly don't gain an appreciation of literature. If anything, just the opposite is true. I'm gonna have see where this line of thinking leads me... |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #15 Jan 1 2006, 07:55 PM |
|
|
Actually, your tax money already "goes to religious schools." The GI Bill, and many other government programs, already provide funds to students to be used at the post-secondary school of their choice. Many spend that money on religious colleges. But, if you think about it, the money would not be paid to the school. The money would be paid to the families, every family of every child, to be used for schooling. Allowing those families then to choose a religious school is the height of not establishing a religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof! To say that only families who want a secular education (and I would argue that this IS establishing the religion of secular humanism) can get a free education actually denies freedom of religion to families who believe that history, science, literature, and all other subjects cannot be taught in a moral vacuum, but that religion and values touch all areas of intellectual endeavor. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #16 Jan 1 2006, 08:24 PM | Son N Law |
Yeah, that I don't have a problem with at all. None whatsoever. Anyone who's going to school on the GI Bill has earned every penny they're getting from me. And they're of age to decide how to spend it. And I would like to clarify one thing I said eariler: "...you would be, in effect, forcing some people to support via their tax dollars the teaching of beliefs they don't subscribe to." I wasn't talking about myself here. The subjects I mentioned above -- linguistics, mathematics, science, and possibly some avenue for artistic expression -- are the only ones I really care about at the primary and secondary level. As long as they're being thoroughly taught, I feel that I'm getting my money's worth. . While I'm definitely agreeing with you that literature and history almost certainly can't be taught in a moral vacuum, I think science absolutely can. Philosophy of Science is another matter altogether, but that's definitely one subject that would be left out of the hypothetical "value-free education curriculum" that's still cooking in the back of my head. True science is as amoral as mathematics or linguistics. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #17 Jan 1 2006, 08:44 PM |
|
|
Whether a benefit was earned or is an entitlement has no logical constitutional distinction. The only constitutional question is whether or not the government can distribute a benefit to an adult, with the adult subsequently using the benefit to buy the intended services from a church or not from a church--at that adult's discretion. Current constitutional readings say yes. Saying no is giving a benefit to the nonreligious that you deny the religious and, therefore, violates the free exercise clause. On your second point, whether or not science can be taught without moral implications (I don't think anything can be), it won't be. There will be science teachers who take the opportunity to say the Earth is specifically not 6,000 years old. There will be physics teachers who will say that science tells us how the universe came into existence and denigrate all other POV. Those actions will prompt zero reaction. However, if they take so much as a minute to show how religion and science don't have to conflict, there will be hell to pay. Health teachers, by making no moral content as they put a condom on a cucumber are making one. Even if some subjects could be sterilized, what would you propose? That students take "sterile" courses at one location at government expense and all "unsterile" courses from another at their own expense? That is impractical and fundamentally defeating of educational purpose. Education is not to teach tasks to be performed. (Although, regrettably, that is the approach at some schools.) It is to build minds, to teach problem-solving, to create thinkers. That cannot be done in subject matter vacuums. Each one of the four major disciplines contributes to the building of a mind and they all interdepend on each other. Mathematics teaches problem solving. English teaches communication. Science teaches inquiry, reasoned conclusion-drawing, and rigor. History brings it all together, teaching us how to evaluate what has happened and how to help bring about the most beneficial future happenings. You need all four, the arts, and PE to build a well-rounded member of society. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #18 Jan 1 2006, 10:42 PM |
|
|
***Had I not been exposed to those other thoughts on how the world came in to existence, I would have never had any idea those theories were out there.*** What other thoughts/theories? You haven't mentioned any yet - only that your teacher(s) gave you permission to NOT believe in evolution. Did this teacher propose any other ideas for the origin of the species? ***our children are already being robbed of a solid education as it is. And, I think that taking any type of religion out of the primary education programs would be a mistake.*** It all depends on how good the school system is where your child attends. Not every public school is lacking. I don't think that "religion" should be taught in the public schools, except when it is time to discuss the origin of the species & when studying history, mention should be made of the worlds' major religions. I would be pleased if every curriculum required the science teacher to verbally state to his/her class that they are about to embark on the scientific explanation for the origins of man and the earth, but there is no universal acceptance of this explanation and that many people believe in other explanations. The teaching of "religion", IMO, should be the perview of the parents, the church and the parochial school, if applicable. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #19 Jan 1 2006, 11:05 PM |
|
|
Religion IS being taught in school: secular humanism. The denial of God combined with the "practical" value systems that are taught amount to a religion. To that I would say - yes & no. For certain there are "secular humanists" in the teaching profession doing their best to pass on their worldview to and through their students - and there are probably many of them like this, but there are probably as many who are not doing that and doing a fine job. Also, I doubt that many students realize that they are bowing to the alter of "secular humanism" per se - which could make it even more insidious. There is only one way to ensure that your kids are not taught substantial values that conflict with the values you want taught: private school, where you choose one whose values and religion (or nonreligion) match yours. It is time for the government to get out of the business of running education and only fund it. The religion in education controversy will evaporate once we realize this is the way to go. Amen, and Amen! |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #20 Jan 1 2006, 11:16 PM |
|
I can't agree here. I believe that many who teach evolution as fact and believe it as fact use it to try to disprove and even to mock religious belief. Many who don't believe in God will play the "intelligence" card and mock those who believe by suggesting that a thinking individual couldn't possibly believe in myths and fairy tales. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Religion · Next Topic » |
3:54 PM May 20