Randman's call for nonSecular education...

It can be done, and the proof is that in at least one case, it has been done. In the thread about whether or not sacred studies shouold be taught in schools I pointed to one such example. It is neither easy or cheap, but certainly possible. I believe that your asumptions will be doubly true. It will open the door to other faiths being taught, and even to the realization that there is not even something that can be called THE Christianity or THE Bible. There are several Canons and so several different Bibles, not just differing translations but different definitions of which books are included and which books should be excluded.Those factors will certainly lead many of the Christian community to oppose any such program. In particular, the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians will oppose this since they are so unsure of their own beliefs that they fear any challenge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

...And even to the realization that there is not even something that can be called THE Christianity or THE Bible.

---

Even worse, from the fundamentalist point-of-view, and as you continue to point out yourself, is that there isn't even a single, clearly correct interpretation of any of part of THE Bible, even if there were such a thing as THE Bible. Hell, I was sliding toward social and economic liberalism and pacifism from reading the Gospels literally back when I was a fundamentalist.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

That was true at the time of Jesus, and for thousands of years before that. The Talmudic discourses show that this is not a new issue. And it shows that the ancient solution, one that has worked for many many centuries, is to acknowledge that diversity and embrace it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You teach the areas of the Bible that have played a significant role in theology and shaping history. As such, you teach all the stories of the Bible. You don't have to teach every part of the Bible, but students should know about the Bible and it's role.For example, the major tenets of Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism (Reformed theology), Anabaptism including subsequent followers like the Quakers and early Baptists (though they were also Calvinist in general, Arminianism (a subset of Calvinism that Reformed theologians would not admit to), and revivalism, and history of major revivals as they played a big role, should be coupled with the relevant areas of the Bible that proponents of these various theologies taught.There should be more on Jewish history, and the pagan religious beliefs that Christianity replaced, all sorts of stuff.The fact is religion has played a much more central role in history and shaping people's thinking, but receives such as bare glossing over that people just lump "Christianity" all together as if it was one thing, and fail to even have a basic concept of Christian theology and concepts.When kids get older, they should also learn of Islam, Budhism and other religions when they study those cultures.

I'm not keeping up with the details of this topic, but to me your persistent theme seems to be doing something in the public schools that actually should be done in the students church. The public school is not a substitute for non-church attendance, or for the church's failure to properly cover issues.Moose

Again, I am confused. Why when older? If it is an historical context which is driving all of this then Islam comes long before Protestantism, and had a major effect on both thought and civilization.I mean at the very least they'd learn of the Crusades, right? And is that just supposed to be learned as Xianity vs "those guys"?Concepts regarding modern govt and much in science began in Islam. Indeed understanding the history of science would have to go into their tolerance for knowledge vs Xian concepts of science which eschewed knowledge.Without Islam, we may not have had some of the precedents and achievements which led to the founding of the US.I get how Eastern religions could naturally come in later, but not Pagans, Islam, and Native American belief systems. You mean like how you lumped all science together and suggested it was just for scientists, despite the fact that the many different fields are what drove our nation towards its greatest achievements and power?AbE: and could you please address how lack of this education would produce students that are not capable of functioning well in society? Why is this rather in depth knowledge of a specific subject considered necessary as "basic" info?This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2005 02:40 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Why not have your church sponser an open to the public symposium on the history of your religion? They could even go so far as to sponser such symposiums on the history of other religions, and compare said histories of the various religions?Moose {Edit - fixed typo}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 11-16-2005 03:03 PM

Why not just turn all education over the the church then?I mean what about math, English, and science? Let's make them voluntary courses you can study, or not. You can learn them from your church or whatever.The simple answer is that schools are suppossed to educate people, and you cannot be educated without a thorough understanding of religion and history. In fact, understanding history and religion is more important than teaching kids languages they quickly forget, science they forget even quicker, etc,...

Nope. Schools ought to educate students and you cannot possibly even have a basic education without understanding religion and history because you cannot hope to grasp history without understanding the ideas that shaped history, and much of those ideas entail religion.

Already explained it. Because first students should know their own nation's history because this is the soceity they live in, and the vast majority will work, vote, socialize in, etc,....It is also important to understand the rest of the world, and so as they are older, they should be taught more of non-Western religions.

I see you cannot in fact answer a very simple question. unsurprising.It is also unsurprising that you make false, inane charges against people who disagree with you.On the other hand, you likely just don't know the answer to my simple question, since you have avoided it. Communism and atheism are not the same thing. The one is not, except in the minds of the ignorant, synonymous with the other.Since you will not, or more likely can not, answer a question. I must yet again cease engaging you on this issue.

It wouldn't be a problem at to teach about religions in history. But what people in the religious right want is not the facts about religion and it's place in history (as is made plain by Randman's emphasis on Christian Protestantism) but about proselytizing to the students.That is the point that is being missed in this entire thread (long off topic forays into how the concept of atheism is so vastly misunderstood and other things not aside), I think. What Randman and others like him want has nothing to do with actual education, but with their desire to maintain the ascendency of there own beliefs at the expense of all others. Several years of "study" into a norrow field like this, pre-college, is silly overkill. It could have no purpose other then indoctrination.Unless... yes...Would supporters of a course in the history of theology that has been suggested here accept it if it were taught with the guiding concept that the actual beliefs were not true? The bible could be studied as literature, the role of Christianity could be studied in great detail. All of the goals (which I believe to be utterly dishonest) stated here could be fulfilled in such a context. Would that be acceptable, or is there maybe some motivation that isn't being mentioned?

Why not leave the bulk of education about the church up to the church, and leave the education about things other than the church up to the schools? Is the church unable to organize and present an in depth study of their history? Like I said before, sponser public symposiums about your religion, or even also about other religions.Which isn't to say that the schools can't present a light covering of religion in the context of history studies. In college, it might even be a heavy coverage. You really think it's the churches function to teach math, English, and science? Knowing history, including religious history, is certainly a good thing. He who doesn't know history, is doomed to repeat it. Seemingly, even if some do know history, they're still doomed to repeat it. I think that anything that you don't use, at least subliminally, tends to get forgotten. It's all relative to what is significant in your life. If you're using a language, you'll remember the language and probably learn even more as you go. Likewise, if you actually use a science. As a side note, I'll point out that much of the study of geology (my degree) is the study of history.In closing, I wish to stress the subliminal influences of a diverse education. I think people often use a lot of what they have learned (from whatever source) without realizing it.Moose

Because if you leave basic education such as religion out of the curriculum, all you will achieve is ignorant students with false misconceptions about history, religion, Christianity, etc,....basically people like mike above.Churches are fine for Christians, but it's not like the vast majority of people would ever learn history then, which is what is happening now. Most people don't know history, and the meaning of basic concepts, how the Western world and America evolved, etc, etc,...and are basically fed misinformation out of fear that properly educating people about the role of theology and religion would entail litigation. So in effect, people are ignorant.If you think schools ought to create ignorant people, fine, but that's not what I believe.This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 05:45 PM

To be honest, that point shouldn't be in this thread. That is what generated this thread. In another thread I said prosyletization was the goal of people like rand (as he was arguing for a voucher system) and he put forward an argument that he was only interested in quality of education... that one cannot have a satisfactory basic education without a firm grounding in Biblical education.This thread is for rand to explain exactly why a secular education would be insufficient, or why Bible knowledge is necessary, to give a student a functional basic knowledge.I do agree with your assessment of his goal, but I am just trying to see how he wants to develop his stated position.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)