Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula

Again, let me ask you to examine the curriculum from St. Paul's School (it's not the only example but it's the one I have knowledge of and access to). Curriculum can be found hereI believe you will find that the other subjects of concern, history, language, chemistry, mathematics, physics, arts, PE, are adequately covered.If it can be done there why can't it be done anywhere?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But those students who are theistic also need to understand the point of view of Agnostics or Atheists.Would you agree?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Did you read through the curriculum?Also, you seem to be switching rapidly between objections.So far you've presented three:

• You dislike the mission statement. That's certainly valid, but has nothing to do with the curriculum. The Mission Statement is for St. Paul's. You may well and rightly disagree with it. A different school would have a different Mission Statement.
• There's not enough hours in the day. Well, the fact that ST. Paul's can fit Sacred Studies in and still do an excellent job of teaching the other subjects proves that it's not an impossible task to fit it all in, so that, I believe is refuted.
• It would cost too much. That is a valid economic question. It is NOT cheap. But we as a people need to decide how much educating the populus is worth. Cost is an obstacle to be overcome.
  

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, St. Paul's is a Private School.Yes, evolution was most certainly taught when I was there, which was 40+ years ago I must admit. In fact, the Creation Myths from Genesis only came up in some of our bull sessions. I would certainly expect that it's still taught since the TOE is accepted by the Episcopal Church as the best explanation of evolution available so far. My guess is that the ommission of any mention is simply the fact that it's a given rather than any attempt to conceal.As to cost and other subjects, I don't see it as limiting one or the other. We need to do a better job in ALL areas of education. But I'm not holding St. Paul's up as "a level of Excellence" but rather as a minimum goal to strive for. It is not the ultimate, but rather a minimal acceptable level.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOLWe'll, that's a tough one. If "episcopalianism" means that you don't have to check your brain at the door, that you are responsible for your actions, that other folk may well have opinions different than yours and you just might learn from them, that there's always more to learn, then I guess so.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If possible can we stick to the question of teaching Sacred Studies as a general subject in school.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah, Staunton. Brings back fond memories of road trips to the Garden of Eden.
_{Hollings, Randolph-Macon, Sweet Briar, Mary Baldwin}Yeah, there are several efforts like that around the country and I deplore their orientation. Now if they took the Christians once a week to a Synagogue and Mosque I think it would be worthwhile but as currently practiced in most cases I see it as counter productive.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Possibly, it would.the best solution would be if the Jews, Buddhists, Muslims went to Christian Churches while the Christians went to Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist locations.This message has been edited by jar, 05-20-2005 12:32 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOLTaught as literature?All of it.Taught as an example of what people believe?All of it.Taught as fact or history?None of it.AbE:Back in msg #38 of the thread I outlined the course I experienced.

quote:

---

When I was a little tyke my parents shipped me off to a Christian Boy's boarding school. I guess that's where most of the exposure began. As kids moved into Upper School (the equivalent of 6th. Grade in the US Public School System) they began exploring religion through Sacred Studies. It was called Sacred Studies to emphasize that it was NOT just Christian Dogma and Indoctrination.

​

Sacred Studies were yet another subject on its own, but was also woven into almost every other subject as well. When we studied Ancient History we read the Book of the Dead, examined the place of worship in Pheonician and Minoian civilizations, studied the Amarna Tablets and early Eastern writings. In math, when we studied Algebra we studied the part that the Muslim world played in creating our currently used arithmetic terminology. In science we touched on the observations and contributions from other religions, and the work of Mendel.

​

The religious studies program consisted of Chapel twice a week in the morning, Sunday bus to Old St. Paul's downtown, related studies in classes and Sacred Studies.

​

Sacred Studies itself began by examining Christianity and in particular, the Anglican Church. We read most of the early works, Luther, Wesley, the History of the CoE, studied the papacy down through the ages with lots of emphasis on Pope Gregory. Then, in succeeding years it expanded into philosophy, examining major religions, reading most of the Eastern teachers and lots of discussions.

​

It continued in informal discussions in the evenings (when you're stuck 24/7 on the top of a hill out in the country with little else to do, kids love discussing philosophy) at the various Masters houses. I was luck enough to have one Master who worked each summer on digs in the Middle East, so we also got an appreciation of what's involved.

​

In all, it was either the exact opposite of indoctrination or the most sophisticated example of such practice. You were NEVER told what to believe. Instead, every single belief you held was challenged constantly. And once you changed to a different POV, that was challenged. LOL

---

Edited by jar, : add possible example curriculum

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I don't think any of the material would have been a problem Constitutionally. I don't ever remember being told what I should believe, in fact a major part was challenging strongly held beliefs. For example we had to build a case for atheism.And certainly the teacher would not just be free to say that the evidence shows the earth to be over 6000 years old, I'd expect such material to be a fundamental part of even a minimalist education.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Me too, but it was Moose that wanted to ignore all the other religions I said should be included.

quote:

---

There is lots covered in that thread, but of course Christianity would only be one of the religions covered.

​

It's hardly worth a whole new thread IMHO, particularly since there are many many examples already in practice, for example the studies in the UK.

​

The minimal religions covered would the the Judaic family (stressing the similarities), the Indus Valley religions, the historic pantheon (Greek, Roman, Norse), Egyptian, and then the Philosophic religions, the writings of Mencius, Confucius, Taoism, Buddhism.

​

Typical questions would be things like what did (pick a religion) say about (pick a subject).

​

It would cover both the good and bad effects of religion over time.

---

From a reply to Moose in the other thread.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then the teacher should say that all the evidence shows that the Bible is factually wrong.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Students can make unconstitutional comments. Happens often.As long as the teacher is not promoting a religion I don't see where there could be a Constitutional issue.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I simply don't see that and I believe that history bears my position out.Certainly there will be lawsuits, likely lots of them. But as long as the teacher does not comment on whether he agrees with some particular religious position, I don't see how a challenge could succeed.I mentioned way back in message 41:

quote:

---

As in so many things, those issues would best be addressed by curiculun and testing.

​

The curiculum might include:

​

* basic religions, the Judeao family, the Eastern Family, Indus Valley religions.
* regional religions (in the US, American Indian beliefs as an example).
* Philosophy (Greece to Kant)
* the place Religion played in developing different cultures (this would vary based on geographic areas. For example, I'd imagine that in Indoneasia the arrival of Islam would be of greater significance than in the US)

​

Testing could also be objective. It would not be so much on what you believe as "What did Mencius say about ..."?

---

and in message 69:

quote:

---

If this is a good idea how could it be implemented?

​

Just to make clear what I'm suggestiong, I'll try to do a short summary.

​

• a multi-year, multi-semester course.
• beginning about midway through Primary education and continuing until graduation.
• integrated with other disciplines, for example
  
  • in history religious components of different cultures would be included.
  • in mathematics, the contributions of the Greek and Islamic world would be included.
  • in current events the influence and effects of religious viewpoints would be included.
    
• it would cover many different religions.
• philosophy, including naturalistic ones would be covered.
• testing would be done based on objective as opposed to subjective criteria.
  
  
  questions would not be on what you believe but rather
  ​
  • "What did Mencius say about ..."
  • what is the "Eight fold Path?
  • who drove the Jews out of Spain?
  • who offered those Jews sanctuary and provided transportation for them?
    
  
  

---

and in message 149:

quote:

---

There is lots covered in that thread, but of course Christianity would only be one of the religions covered.

​

It's hardly worth a whole new thread IMHO, particularly since there are many many examples already in practice, for example the studies in the UK.

​

The minimal religions covered would the the Judaic family (stressing the similarities), the Indus Valley religions, the historic pantheon (Greek, Roman, Norse), Egyptian, and then the Philosophic religions, the writings of Mencius, Confucius, Taoism, Buddhism.

​

Typical questions would be things like what did (pick a religion) say about (pick a subject).

​

It would cover both the good and bad effects of religion over time.

---

I'm not sure how mucvh more detail you want from me?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yup, whiskeypalian.And yes, "As soon as you even mentioned any of the beliefs of, say, Islam or Shintoism in any but a condemnatory way, the good bibliatrous parents of Texas would throw wall-eyed fits. "That is why it is important to stick to facts and ask questions like those outlined above. It would take some training and certification of the teachers but that is possible. The UK does it.There will certainly be challenges but it should be able to write a curriculum that would pass the Constitutional test.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!