|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,793 Year: 4,050/9,624 Month: 921/974 Week: 248/286 Day: 9/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible/Religious Education in America | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Modulous writes: What is important, I think, is to emphasize the point that even if everyone never agrees on the need to agree, we will either be collectively all agreeable or we won't. One or the other. I question the wisdom, however, of worrying about the bias (I raised the bias of teachers, but anybody in the process counts) - history and science and art and English Literature suffer from it after all. Somehow a broad consensus of important facts gets agreed upon that people should know. For example: That Islam, Christianity and Judaism are "Abrahamic" religions who all believe in slightly different concepts of the same god. Key religious festivals in them etc etc. (Think outside the box. "One or the other". Key concept.) Edited by Phat, : fixed a few things to look a little better Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Modulous writes:
Not in the sense I was using the word 'science', and not in the sense that most people would use it that way either.quote:Science Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com quote:Mathematics - Wikipedia I think it is in the sense of *everyone* using it that way.
Modulous writes:
Really? Well gosh, why don't you call up the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants? Apparently you have some news for them!
There is no debate about the contents of the Bible, but there is a great deal of debate about interpreting what that means. Modulous writes:
Right, but you don't teach that the Boer war was caused by aliens attacking a local brewery. You don't teach that because it is objectively not true, despite what the town drunk claims. With religious education they are equally valid topics of study.
We can still teach history, even though we can't teach it all.We can still teach it, even though there is disagreement over whether such-and-such actually said or did x. We can still teach it, even if there is disagreement over whether the Boer war was a contributory factor in the breakout of WWI. Modulous writes:
Well too bad, you are objectively wrong. Heresy! I happen to believe the South won and the holocaust did not happen and I deman equal time in the classroom! Now do me, but tell me that being a Jew is wrong.
Modulous writes:
So you are going to have a state-run institution tell the group down the road who follows "Jesus of Nazareth" and believes "Christ" is simply an honorary title that they are not really Christian? Do you potentially see a problem with such a thing? How about telling us why you, or anyone else for that matter, deserves to set up the official guidelines of what makes Jews Jewish?
I'm not talking about dictating beliefs, I'm talking about objective facts about religion. Christians follow someone called 'Jesus Christ'. Modulous writes:
Well, lets lay it out perfectly clearly. If you are a history teacher in public school and you teach incorrect history, you will be fired. Sure, you can go home and tell your kids whatever you like, but public education has taken an official stance on some *factual* issues of history.
How does being taught that the holocaust happened prevent you from teaching them that it didn't? Modulous writes:
And some countries make their women cover every inch of their skin and treat them as little more than property. Some countries will stone you to death for speaking ill of an entity nobody can prove actually exists. The fact that some countries do something is hardly a compelling argument that it is a good idea.
Some countries even teach their kids what Yom Kippur is, and why Sikhs wear turbans etc and that some religions have baptism ceremonies and some of the beliefs that exist about baptism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
I think it is quite obvious that we are not collectively all agreeable.
...we will either be collectively all agreeable or we won't. One or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Phage0070 writes: The question then becomes: Does it matter if we don't all agree? I think it is quite obvious that we are not collectively all agreeable. I would suggest that it can, if any one group of us or individuals within groups are affected beyond their control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
Oh, I would agree. For instance, telling someone what their beliefs are or are not.
I would suggest that it can, if any one group of us or individuals within groups are affected beyond their control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think it is in the sense of *everyone* using it that way. I think most people use science to refer to an empirical methodology and mathematics as being focussed on logical studies. I am not saying one cannot say that maths is a science, I'm just saying that I was not using the word in that fashion.
Really? Well gosh, why don't you call up the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants? Apparently you have some news for them! You forgot the Muslims and the Ethiopians - if only the fact that different groups had different canons were taught at school Pedantry aside as to what should be included as canon, there is pretty much no dispute over the contents of Exodus or the book of Acts.
Right, but you don't teach that the Boer war was caused by aliens attacking a local brewery. You don't teach that because it is objectively not true, despite what the town drunk claims. With religious education they are equally valid topics of study. I'm not suggesting we teach that Catholic teaching is that aliens started the Boer war, since that is objectively false. I'm suggesting we teach children important facts about the religions of the world. And since we can't teach it all (like with history) certain decisions have to be made. Do we teach what Dave from Dagenham had for breakfast on 3 July 1494? No, we should teach actual facts about religions - and only ones which are judged as important or interesting enough to warrant study.
Well too bad, you are objectively wrong. Now do me, but tell me that being a Jew is wrong. Great, so let's not teach kids facts that are objectively wrong. So, let's teach them that being a Jew is an ethnic as well as a religious label and that in this class we are talking about the religious side of things. We'll teach them about what the Talmud is and what that means, the Pentatuech, the Old Testament (though mentioning that this is not a Jewish label), maybe talk about Abraham and other prophets, Genesis and the origins of various religious festivals. You know, objective facts about Judaism.
So you are going to have a state-run institution tell the group down the road who follows "Jesus of Nazareth" and believes "Christ" is simply an honorary title that they are not really Christian? No, I didn't say that in order to qualify as a Christian one has to think that Yeshua's real name is Christ (since that would be objectively false, if anything children should be taught that Christ is a title - since that is objectively true). My thought got cut off and I was trying to say more but forgot about it. I'm not proposing we come up with any 'qualifications' for any religious view. However, children should be made aware of what someone generally means when they say "Hi I'm a Christian" or "Hi I am Muslim". They should also be made aware that there are many groups that identify as Christians and Muslims, that there are differences (with some key ones such as Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Sunni etc), but some general indicators.
Well, lets lay it out perfectly clearly. If you are a history teacher in public school and you teach incorrect history, you will be fired. Sure, you can go home and tell your kids whatever you like, but public education has taken an official stance on some *factual* issues of history. There is some leeway, here, actually. Precisely because of the contentious nature of history. Nevertheless, there is a curriculum. And as long as the factual issues of religion are addressed I still don't see a problem. Unless there is a reason that a school shouldn't commit themselves to commenting on whether or not the Qur'An is the holy book of Islam and that Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel dictated its words to Mohammed?
And some countries make their women cover every inch of their skin and treat them as little more than property. Some countries will stone you to death for speaking ill of an entity nobody can prove actually exists. The fact that some countries do something is hardly a compelling argument that it is a good idea. No - I was inviting you to look to those countries to see if you can find a consequence of this kind of study that is negative. They exist and some systems even avoid all out civil war. Exam questions might be about religious symbols and devices or the structure of a mosque or the method of prayer in a mandir or a typical service in a gurdwara. You may be asked about views on abortion or war of various religions. Correct answers include pointing out that there are differences within the religions. In some places, discussions of secular views are even had.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So basically what is the extent of religious education in America? Does it need changing? Combining with science education? Where should we go from here in educating our scientists, theists and philosophers of the future? Or should Britain be more hard in its approuch to a religious/science curriculum? Don't be taken in by the assortment of media stories about faith/eduction in America. While there is a sizable lobby pushing for creation to be taught alongside evolution, there are only a handful of school districts actually pushing for it. There are tens of thousands of school districts and I would estimate, off-hand, that only .5% actually have anything in their curriculum that would be different from what might be read in British textbooks. That said, it does exist in small locales. It usually goes to court and to date, I think the creationists have all lost those cases. To answer your other question, no, I don't think there is any need to combine science with religion as they are completely separate studies. It makes about as much sense as combining literature with mathematics. They're two completely different studies, and one has nothing to do with the other. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
...It seems to me that the seperation of church and state within the constitution has been basterdizied somewhat. It has in the sense that some people have stretched its meanings a bit. All the Establishment Clause to this amendment means is that the government shall not infringe upon religion, and religion shall have no preference to government, meaning, the government shall not side with any religion. It is supposed to remain neutral. The instructors are supposed to have a kind of clinical detachment and simply teach the facts, not inject bias. So in a public school, which is funded by federal, state, or local government money, it is illegal to be teaching religion outside of a religious studies course. The course itself has to remain neutral and simply teach the tenets of various religions. They cannot show preferential treatment to any of them.
America as it is does not has seperation between church and state. It has vitriol and hate between two ideals. Would you think the same thing? It has Seperation of Church and State, but as I said above some people or groups confuse the issue to mean more than what it does. In essence, certain theist or anti-theist groups intentionally distort it to suit their own agendas.
I'm not an anti american but as a super-power the Americas leads the way in education. Ha! No, it doesn't, and much to my chargin, as I am American. America has some very good universities but the public school system on the elemantary, middle, and high school level in many areas are abysmal. The United States fares very low on the education totem comparitively for a number of reasons, but most notably due to indifference and laziness. Nations who have far less funding often do better than their American counterparts, which proves that funding alone can't make students do better. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4667 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Ever seen anyone use the scientific method in Mathematics ?
I totally understand Modulus on this. Although mathematics is referred to as science, it is somehow very different from the rest of science and I would preferably never refer to it as science. For example, you can never prove anything in science, but Mathematics is all about makings proofs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Modulous writes:
Bam! Now you have an official religious czar, who decides what religions get to be taught in school and which ones are not officially recognized. I don't think that is a good idea at all.
No, we should teach actual facts about religions - and only ones which are judged as important or interesting enough to warrant study. Modulous writes:
So you would be OK with teaching people that being Jewish involves wearing a hot pink hat with a propeller and flashing LEDs, and chanting Norse folk songs backwards? We'll teach them about what the Talmud is and what that means, the Pentatuech, the Old Testament (though mentioning that this is not a Jewish label), maybe talk about Abraham and other prophets, Genesis and the origins of various religious festivals. You know, objective facts about Judaism. Here is the tricky bit, if you are unwilling to teach that because it is incorrect, then you just told some person that their religion is "wrong". In this case it may just be one guy, but it means that somewhere there is a little town that has beliefs your religion czar does not deem worthy of being an official religion. Perhaps somewhere in Africa there is an entire country. Where can one draw the line, if at all?
Modulous writes:
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. In this case you are saying that people who do not believe that the angel Gabriel dictated its words to Mohammed are not Muslim, and while a contrary example may be quite rare there probably exists one. I think that setting up a government agency to define what is and what is not part of a religion is an extremely bad idea.
Unless there is a reason that a school shouldn't commit themselves to commenting on whether or not the Qur'An is the holy book of Islam and that Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel dictated its words to Mohammed? Modulous writes:
Wonderful, those exam questions would be quite the minefield. Your test would arbitrarily decide what symbols count as religious symbols, inevitably telling some poor kid that his family is "doing it wrong". Some mosque isn't going to qualify as being built "up to code" for being a mosque and I doubt the resident worshipers will be thrilled. Are you really willing to tell some guy who prays in a mandir that his method is objectively wrong, or that a typical service isn't typical enough?
Exam questions might be about religious symbols and devices or the structure of a mosque or the method of prayer in a mandir or a typical service in a gurdwara.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
slevesque writes:
Given that all the math I know was invented long before my birth, I have not actually personally witnessed its development. However, yes it did involve using the scientific method. Specifically that whole bit about matching theories to data, and refining said theories until a useful model is created to predict future phenomena.
Ever seen anyone use the scientific method in Mathematics ? slevesque writes:
Well, feel privileged in a dramatic minority.
Although mathematics is referred to as science, it is somehow very different from the rest of science and I would preferably never refer to it as science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Bam! Now you have an official religious czar, who decides what religions get to be taught in school and which ones are not officially recognized. I don't think that is a good idea at all. A "religion czar?" Why would it have to be so serious? There is already a body of curriculum writers, no need to create something as extreme as an religion czar.
Here is the tricky bit, if you are unwilling to teach that because it is incorrect, then you just told some person that their religion is "wrong". In this case it may just be one guy, but it means that somewhere there is a little town that has beliefs your religion czar does not deem worthy of being an official religion. What are you talking about? If it's not in the religion, then why would it be discussed? What you're saying could go for anything in school curriculum, including science. Do we need a science czar because of it?
Your test would arbitrarily decide what symbols count as religious symbols, inevitably telling some poor kid that his family is "doing it wrong". There is nothing "arbitrary" about it, this is all common knowledge. Maybe we need a czar because % in some obscure place means &. What then is your solution to the false dilemma you invented? "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Who decides if it is in the religion or not? At what point, if any, are you willing to tell someone that their religious beliefs are incorrect?
What are you talking about? If it's not in the religion, then why would it be discussed? Hyroglyphx writes:
No, not all scientific ideas are required to be treated equally. There is an objective truth for science, but not so for religion.
What you're saying could go for anything in school curriculum, including science. Do we need a science czar because of it? Hyroglyphx writes:
Are you truly so prejudiced that you think your "common knowledge" is an appropriate scale by which to measure the personal beliefs of billions? You were raised to understand that certain religions have specific qualities, and there may well be many people who agree, but that does *NOT* mean you have the right to define those religions.
There is nothing "arbitrary" about it, this is all common knowledge. Maybe we need a czar because % in some obscure place means &. Hyroglyphx writes:
I am going to ignore the spirit of your rude and snarky comment, and provide an enriching response. I think that people should do their own religious investigation as they see fit, and hopefully come to the understanding that religious beliefs are a personal and highly variable subject. If they choose to stereotype religious groups (as is inevitable) then they do so at their own peril.
What then is your solution to the false dilemma you invented?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Who decides if it is in the religion or not? At what point, if any, are you willing to tell someone that their religious beliefs are incorrect? Theology classes teach the facts about mainstream religion. How does that conflict with anything?
No, not all scientific ideas are required to be treated equally. There is an objective truth for science, but not so for religion. What relevance does it have to being able to teach about the tenets of various religions? Would we also need a Philosophy Czar because philosophy is subjective? My point is that you're really being silly about this and needlessly dragging this out.
Are you truly so prejudiced that you think your "common knowledge" is an appropriate scale by which to measure the personal beliefs of billions? You were raised to understand that certain religions have specific qualities, and there may well be many people who agree, but that does *NOT* mean you have the right to define those religions. Different denominations have varying perspectives on certain issues. That doesn't mean that there is not a common theme that runs through them all. All that one would have to do for a theology class is to simply go over mainstream beliefs and how they often splinter off. No one has to be right or wrong, just present the FACTS. That would be like not teaching evolution because Lamarcke and Darwin differed on opinions, rather than just accepting that they came to different conclusions. How is that different from religion? Seriously, why are you making a mountain out of a molehill?
I am going to ignore the spirit of your rude and snarky comment, and provide an enriching response. I think that people should do their own religious investigation as they see fit, and hopefully come to the understanding that religious beliefs are a personal and highly variable subject. If they choose to stereotype religious groups (as is inevitable) then they do so at their own peril. So you don't want anyone teaching any religion at all? You expect people to intrinsically know what the Qu'ran or the bible is without informing them what it is? Why? What does it matter to you? "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
andyr86 Junior Member (Idle past 5082 days) Posts: 4 From: Cardiff Joined: |
Surely teaching about the main religions in school would enable students to make up their own minds and also allow them to incorporate your pink hat, fluffy dice etc religion if and when it is met in the wider world. Teaching about larger faiths basic doctrines wouldn't necessarily create a situation where the authenticity of any belief system is dictated by the state.
In fact i would say that it allows the student a greater ability to understand and except smaller denominations and religious beliefs instead of meeting these religions blind. Edited by andyr86, : Spelling.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024