Randman's call for nonSecular education...

But I just explained to you that Islam in fact played a role in our nation's history. And believe it or not there are many muslims within US society today.It would really be funny to explain to a Black innercity youth that Xianity is the major important social force, and so that is what they need to learn first, when their family is from the nation of islam.It seems more like you need to learn how much of our culture came from outside Xianity, and how much of society today is not Xian.And again as part of your argument you reveal a fatal flaw. If it is a major part of the society that they will socialize into in the course of their life, you have removed the only reason to teach it. Also, are you now saying that a person who is not fully versed in Biblical theology is not properly socialized on top of not having a sufficient education?

---

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

How would you feel if schools didn't teach science because, gasp, it could be controversial, and we just told students to learn science from various science-clubs over the weekend?Would that be educating them?The fact is you might as well not teach history at all if you are not going to delve pretty deep into religion. For example, you cannot understand the Reformation without understanding the 3 major theological sides to what happened, and the subsets within them.1. Catholicism, and the subsets within it such as Erasmus' teachings.
2. Protestantism, Luther on one hand and Swingli and Calvin on the other.
3. Anabaptism and it's forerunners such as the Waldensians, and those that followed such as the Quakers.If you don't know what the debate was about, it's really hard to understand the setting which produced the colonies and eventually the USA. People forget but in the colonies, one of the main information centers every week were the weekly sermons, which often were greatly influenced by Reformed thinking (Reformed means Calvinistic), and that the whole concepts of how it could be godly to defy a king has it's roots in how it can be considered godly to defy a Pope.Another major tenet that influenced the colonies stemmed from Anabaptism, so much so that nearly all Protestants were won over to basic Anabaptist theology, "separation of church and state" which was coined by them supposedly but dates back as far as the Donatists in the 4th century, the idea of freedom of religion, that Christianity was a volunteer religion, etc,...However, the direct descendants so to speak of the Anabaptists were pacifists and did not support the Revolution. American Christianity thus melded Calvinism and Anabaptism, and along with later theologies such as Deism, formed the backbone of revolutionary thinking.This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 06:13 PM

You have a circular argument going. Lets get more basic...1) What is a basic education? (i.e. what is its function?) Do not use words that are topics that education might cover.2) How is religion necessary to fulfill the goal in #1? This means you have to explain how a person will be incapable of being successful, or seriously hampered, without it.3) Why would ordinary life not provide an understanding of what is important to them socially, or in society?4) What would people do "wrong" if they do not know this history you claim they need to know?5) If a student studied only language, math, science, and general history could they not live a good functional life and determine for themselves where this nation should go? If not, why not? Wait... most people are ignorant of the Bible, and yet children must be taught because it is what is driving this society? If most are ignorant of it, then it isn't a major part of society.And you are not really answering why it would be counterproductive to allow churches to provide the religious information and schools to provide training in all nonreligious coursework. Even if you believed all needed to learn it, that would not suggest the two could not be divided.It's like trying to tell me that when I go to learn mechanical engineering the engineering school must also have other courses, because those other courses would be useful for me. As true as that might be, I could go elsewhere rather than jamming them all into one location and mix functions.

---

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

First of all that is not the reason religion is not taught in school. It is not taught because it is against a student's rights to have someone tell them what they should believe regarding their religion.Science doesn't tell anyone what they have to believe regarding their religion, and so does not compare.I think it would be errant to leave out science education in basic education as that is what we use to understand how things work. Even if you don't believe in Evo, you still use science to get things done. That is what gave this nation its power, and our slowly losing science knowledge to other nations is what is causing us to lose power.However, if for some reason money was not available for adequate science education, I'd say a bare minimum education would be language, math, and logic. This seems like empty hyperbole. You are correct that to get a detailed understanding of some events in history it would be useful to understand religious beliefs involved. However one does not need a detailed understanding of all events to get a basic understanding of history. Neither does the Xian religion play a role in some of the most important events, especially in World History preXianity (which is most of history), and recent history. Amazingly you managed to leave out all of the nonreligious elements which went into that revolutionary thinking and activity. You make it sound like it was a religious movement within Xianity but it wasn't.I guess that's what happens when you concentrate so hard on one subject to the exclusion of all else. What role did the Enlightenment play? Specifically toward political concepts?They certainly didn't come from the Bible or purely Xian theologies. One might also note the irony that you said Islam should be taught later, when it was the inspiration for some of the Reformist concepts you mentioned.But let me ask a more practical question. What would not understanding that, cause a person to do? How would they be less functioning?I can tell you what people would be missing without science, but for the life of me I can't figure out how not knowing erasmus' teachings would adversely effect general knowledge about the world or what a person could do in the world.

---

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

No one is asking that students be taught they have to believe, but ignoring theology and religion is just a recipe for ignorance in education.As far as the Enlightenment, I mentioned other ideologies/theology such as Deism, and in no way want to claim the Enlightenment was not also in the mix. The problem is leaving out the truth of all of history teaches a lie, such as claiming the Enlightenment is the mix.For example, most people actually believe that the Enlightenment is where the idea of separation of Church and State came from. They have no idea that for centuries this was a rallying cry among one of the main camps so to speak within Christianity, and so in a large sense are basically ignorant of history, and really ignorant of the concept too.The concept is based on a different view of the Church compared to the Catholic and early Protestant view. The idea is that soceity consists of both those following Christ and born-again, and the world which is not. Therefore, it's wrong to think the government can regulate and impose religion because Jesus taught society would be a mix of the world and the believers.Why is this important?Well one reason is so people can understand the Bill of Rights and what the nation is founded on. The nation is founded upon factionalism not that a unifying ideology such as secular humanism or one brand of religion should predominate.Secularists have turned this on it's head, and try to make their own ideology the de facto state religion by excluding anything but that. So they teach the Enlightenment was essentially the religion of the nation, and that secular humanism is therefore really what we should all be.But the reality is otherwise, and not just the Enlightenment but the various theologies I mentioned are all part of what founded this nation.

Man, I just paged through 100+ posts of atheism vs communism, just so I could respond to these latest posts... I want those 25 minutes of my life back! Ugh! I disagree. Society always exists in a historical context. Even if EVERYBODY is ignorant of the Bible, it can still drive society via it's historical influence. Of course with no guidance, the historical influence will gradually be lost over time.Which brings up a second objection: the majority are followers, and don't necessarily "drive" a culture. Those in positions of influence are who drive cultures. You can have a majority of "the few" (those who exert cultural influence) be actively making the Bible drive their influence, and thus drive the culture, while the masses remain ignorant. What is a basic education, and what's the purpose of a basic education? You ask the questions, but I can't tell your own view. I'd say it's to make people functional, contributing members of our societies, to give them skills such that they can relate socially to others and have necessary and discernable skills.I think that, in a globalized world, it's important to really understand the roles of religion and culture in the interplay of people in the world. I also think a historical perspective of our own country is important. I do think there is an important role for teaching about Christianity in a required setting, i.e. in school. The actual organization of the curriculum.. I'm not sure, but I like some of the suggestions that you and jar have made.To get to the point (your question), having the church teach it is problematic for two reasons:

• The church has a vested interest in teaching Christianity both sympathetically and less from the viewpoint of "one of many religious / ethical / cultural viewpoints". I want to see Christianity taught from the viewpoint of someone on the outside looking in.
• It then becomes optional. How do you require people to go to church after school to learn about religious things? And how do you deal with it when you move to other religions / cultures?

Well first of all, public education in the US IS like this; everything is taught in the same place. There's no such specialization.Second, even specialized schools have basic requirements. For example, engineering schools have requirements in the humanities. And they're taught by on-campus faculty employed by the university. So... I don't think you're objection is a good one.Ben

Even if randman's underlying motivation is such evagelism (and I really have no idea either way), this thread is about the merits of teaching about religion. I found it odd to hear you say this, because you previously objected to mikehagar's remarks in this direction...I think teaching about Christianity is not against anybody's rights, just as teaching about Western history to first-generation Eastern immigrants is not against their rights. History, both cultural and political, is really important stuff. With some things, appearance and reality are the same thing. I think to a large degree, this is true for the case you're talking about. To many people, science appears to be putting some boundaries and limitations on religious beliefs. To many people, the naturalistic assumptions, combined with the presentation of scientific results as describing reality (i.e. TRUTH), means that science is making the statement that reality is purely naturalistic (and not that it simply can be described usefully naturalistically).In that way, I am really reluctant to accept your statement... Totally agree. Just think the same argument should be given to Christianity. Especially given an EvC debate; understanding Christianity is a critical part in being able to usefully proceed in the debate. Otherwise, we just get caught up in "arguing" facts. ("Arguing" = talking at each other in a non-constructive manner)Do agree with the rest of your post. I'm quite surprised to disagree with parts of two of your posts in the same day. Must have been that "supreme" pizza I had for dinner, which was "supreme" in only one dimension--the indigestion I'm dealing with right now.Ben

Moose,I think holmes' post here is relevant to your thoughts.To summarize, this is supposed to be a thread about why ALL students should learn ABOUT Christianity. What you write sounds like you think it's a thread about "teaching" Christian faith (i.e. teacahing with the purpose of creating / recruiting / maintaining believers) to some people.Ben

Ben, I can see why you come to that conclusion. I think I expressed my views poorly in message 140, and ended up saying something I didn't intend to say (and got my first POTM nomination in the process). I was intending to talk about religious and church history and their influences on the bigger picture of history, not some variety of religious indoctrination.Apparently I was subconciously aware of that messages shortcomings - about 1/2 hour later I posted message 142
[fixed spelling errors in quotation]
which I though was much better. It was followed up by message 148.It probably would take a very honest organization (church or otherwise) to accurately self-present it's history, ugly warts and all.Moose

Moose--I did read the other messages (and re-read them now), but I still think religious education is an important part of understanding our past and current culture. For that reason, it should be presented in school. Because, that's one major reason for having school--to make us functional in our culture and (hopefully) in interacting with cultures around the world (we live in a globalized world, after all)There's workshops all over the place that people can attend, but the problem is that they're not mandatory. And that the purpose behind them can be really questioned.Why do you think that an optional workshop on Christianity would address the real issue (that understanding major roots in your past and current culture is an important part of what allows you to have the perspective necessary for making good, informed decisions within your culture)? You could honestly make any subject optional / elective; why this one?Ben

In the final 4 years of my pre-college education I had 1 or 2 (don't recall for sure) semesters of U.S. history, 1 semester of Russian history, and 1 semester of Soviet Union history (semester=1/2 year, 5 one hour classes per week). Perhaps also a year of world history would have been a good thing, but such was not offered where I went to school.I'm not against some coverage of religious history, in the context of such history classes, and I indicated such in a previous message. But how much time is available to be devoted to such?Are you proposing a specific class covering the religious history of the U.S. (for those in the U.S.) and the rest of the world?Moose

I think it would be great if we had classes that help people understand what makes a culture, and make religion a big part of that. To teach people what is at the core of cultural tolerance. (Some) people exercise cultural tolerance because they're taught to do it. I want the beginnings of an understanding of it. It's a poor man's version of studying abroad.Living in another culture and dealing with the differences, and being "culturally tolerant" on your own turf are two different things. I don't see that we have any mechanism that teaches us such things. Some communities are able to provide that, but seems to me there are lots of communities that do NOT provide it (due to a lack of diversity [cultural, economic, etc].There are so many subjects that lack true utility for most students, and should be elective. I think it would be worthwhile to list out what classes are currently mandatory in some school, which are optional, and to each state which classes we think should be mandatory and why. Is this the thread for that, or should it go in another?In the case you gave, it's super easy. Bye-bye Russian & Soviet history, it's unnecessary. US history is OK... but I'd rather there were more interactive classes that are more useful ("Applied History of the United States of America" would be one).Being multi-culturally functional should be a requirement that we don't ignore. And part of that is understanding your own culture and religious foundings, and the culture of those around you.How much can fit onto a semester? That's a good question, I'm not going to address it unless someone asks (because it takes a lot of thought).Ben

By the time the apologetic spin-doctors get through, Moose, you wouldn`t recognise it. I bet the massacres, torture and burnings get the red pencil. Even more likely to get the chop are the unanswered prayers of the faithful. Let`s take the three MAIN rat plagues.540 A.D.+ Byzantium--10,000 died each day at the height of the plague in the capital, 100 million throughout the empire.1348 A.D.+ The Black Death--more than 25 million in Europe, half the population of Italy alone.1900+ (officially ended in 1949, though there were 100,000 cases reported worldwide in the decade up to 1974)--figures still being assessed though Western countries tended to escape the worst of it due to better rat/hygiene control.(More Cunning than Man--Robert Hendrickson)There were many minor outbreaks including the one that decimated the fourth Crusade.
Wonder how many Christians sent up a prayer for help before they died in agony? Will this be part of the history of Christianity? Or will it concentrate on 'tickling the ears'?

quote:

---

In fact, understanding history and religion is more important than teaching kids languages they quickly forget, science they forget even quicker, etc,...

---

Oh, yes, understanding how science and technology works is quite useless, since science has such a small impact on our everyday lives...

quote:

---

No one is asking that students be taught they have to believe, but ignoring theology and religion is just a recipe for ignorance in education.

---

And I already told you that nobody is ignoring theology and religion in the public schools.Just because I didn't spend half my school time studying theology and religion doesn't mean it was ignored.So, you do realize that the more time spent on in-dept religious history, the less time spent on things like spelling, reading, writing, arithmatic, etc.It's starting to sound like you want to move closer to what the radical imam-run Islamic schools dis under the Taliban in Afghanistan; teach only the koran to the exclusion of all else.And you still haven't answered holmes about why should christian protestantism be stressed over all other religions when the children are young?Surely, the native religion should come before christianity if studying the religious history of north america, correct, considering the indians were here for at least 10,000 years before the Europeans came?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 06:27 AM