New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge

Setanta wrote:

But to assert an equivalence between science and superstition, and then assert that acceptance of one necessarily unjustly deprives a statement of the other is absurdity of the highest order.

Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been in the post to which Echi responded. I wasn't necessarily referring to science when I said that religious students are being taught what they disagree with. I was referring to the over-arching philosophy behind the presentation of material in public schools (which would be secularism, atheism, relativism, etc.).

I think you and I are actually in at least partial agreement about science and religion being unmeshable. My opinion: Science is a discipline that absolutely depends on observation: what we can see, measure, and prove. Religion certainly isn't science. It is first about faith, which is unmeasurable and unable to be proven. The study of science and the study of religion can't be meshed into one or equated because they are different in nature. As a person of faith, I happen to believe that science and religion complement, not contradict, one another. I also find that existence of God has its evidences as well, but they aren't scientific.

As to the questioning of dogma: Perhaps questioning of dogma in organized religion isn't generally permitted. I know that, in my own encounters with ministers in the Christian faith, they have encouraged me to question everything. They (and now I) believe that God is big enough to handle those questions.

0 Replies

I for one have never seen anything taught in school from an atheistic standpoint. I would be curious to know who has and in what manner.

0 Replies

I oppose the special status which would be conferred on christianity in general, and evangelical Protestantism in particular, by a bible class as described. I would also be opposed to a course in the Quran and the Hadith as an unacceptable promotion of Islam. I would also oppose the promotion of Judaism through a special course which examined only the Torah. I would oppose any course which someone cobbled together to promote either agnosticism or "atheism." I don't for a moment accept the proposition that there is any atheist or secular humanist agenda being pushed in public schools.

Redeeemed, i will thoroughly read and respond to your post later--i've got dinner to make.

0 Replies

Setanta,

Yeah, yeah. If you were indifferent, you'd ignore me, just as I intend to do with you from this point on. I see no reason to try to have a conversation with you. I have tried being civil and offering an olive branch and compromise. You're not interested. Fine.

0 Replies

Edgar:

Quote:

I for one have never seen anything taught in school from an atheistic standpoint. I would be curious to know who has and in what manner.

I'm not talking about a teacher standing in front of a class and saying openly that there is no God. I'm referring to the basis of the system, which mirrors the basis for our society. It is more of an assumption from which everything else is based.

For instance, an ethics class is not taught based on an assumption that there is a divine moral code. It is taught from the assumption that there is no God, and therefore our moral code must stem from another source. Another example is history. The telling of history is done from the assumption that God is non-existent and that history has unfolded apart from any divine interference/plan. That sounds fairly atheistic to me.

So while this is done under the label of separation of church and state, religion isn't actually absent. There are still religious assumptions being made; they are just atheistic, rather than theistic.

I understand that many, many people don't believe that God exists or has anything to do with history, ethics, or anything else. I don't want to force my beliefs into the education of others. What I do want to see is an opportunity for students to compare, in an educational setting (read: objective learning, not brain-washing), the different religions/philosophies of the world (both theistic and atheistic) and to understand how the tenets of those systems have shaped and continue to shape society.

0 Replies

Redeemed wrote:

What I do want to see is an opportunity for students to compare, in an educational setting (read: objective learning, not brain-washing), the different religions/philosophies of the world (both theistic and atheistic) and to understand how the tenets of those systems have shaped and continue to shape society.

Courses like this have been taught in Canada for close to 40 years now. At the high school and university level. They started teaching them at the public school level about 20 years ago. I always found them interesting. The history of religion is intriguing business.

0 Replies

ehBeth:

Out of curiosity, because you seem to have a first-hand look... has anyone found them to be offensive? Does it entangle religion and the state? Or do you think it's been beneficial to students?

Does Canada have separation of church and state? I actually don't know very much about the Canadian system of law or education (or really much else Embarrassed

).

0 Replies

I have long said that a class that objectively takes into consideration all points of view, christian, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, etc., is not objectionable. But that is not what Momma and most of them want. They want a class based solely on the Bible. That's where the real argument is on here.

0 Replies

I also disagree with redeemed that schools are now taught in a way promoting atheism. It's just not there.

0 Replies

When I took the courses some 30 years ago, they were split out. One year was "world religions", the other year was "world politics". Both were sort of starter kits. I believe that we were very lucky. While our instructor was a very granola-y Christian of the 1970's, he was also a marvellous developer of critical thinking skills in his students.

He kept his beliefs out of the discussions in class, though he was willing to debate with students outside of class.

It wasn't controversial at the time - we were encouraged to learn about other people/cultures/religions ... even cooking <in small-town Canada in about 1972, I was learning to cook North Indian foods at school - with the teacher mail-ordering special ingredients>.

I'd be hard-pressed to find a good example of church influence on government here in the last 40 years - other than Tommy Douglas <who's a very interesting Canadian politician to read about>.

The recent merger of the Reform party with the Progressive Conservatives will be an interesting test of how Canadians respond to a party with a fairly hard-core evangelical Christian aspect.

0 Replies

Edgar wrote:

Quote:

I also disagree with redeemed that schools are now taught in a way promoting atheism. It's just not there.

I would hesitate to use the word "promote" myself. It's not so much what they actually teach or promote as it is the assumptions made, which are the basis from which everything else is taught.

Would you say, then, that the basic assumptions made in the classes I mentioned (ethics and history) are that God exists? I know that may seem like a false either/or situation, but in my eyes, it's either one or the other. Either God exists, or He doesn't (I realize that's fairly obvious... I'm not questioning your intelligence). One assumption has to be made, whether by the textbook or the teacher, and that assumption changes the entire approach to a subject.

ehBeth:

Thanks for the info. That's really interesting. I'm glad you had a good experience. Smile

0 Replies

I found it very beneficial, redeemed.

I went on to study more about the religions of Japan and China as electives when I went to university.

The courses whetted my curiosity - and the critical thinking training has come in handy in a number of areas of my life.

0 Replies

Redeemed wrote:

Would you say, then, that the basic assumptions made in the classes I mentioned (ethics and history) are that God exists? I know that may seem like a false either/or situation, but in my eyes, it's either one or the other. Either God exists, or He doesn't (I realize that's fairly obvious... I'm not questioning your intelligence). One assumption has to be made, whether by the textbook or the teacher, and that assumption changes the entire approach to a subject.

A good instructor will NOT bring god/God into a discussion of history or ethics, or in fact any class. It is a lazy instructor who is not able to manage that.

0 Replies

Redeemed wrote:

One assumption has to be made, whether by the textbook or the teacher, and that assumption changes the entire approach to a subject.

What assumptions might be found in a textbook concerning God's existence?

0 Replies

ehBeth:

Yes, perhaps a good instructor doesn't bring God into it. I should clarify that I'm not saying that an instructor should bring his/her own beliefs into it.

My point is that one assumption must be made. Either choose to bring God into it (any God, not necessarily the Christian God), or choose not to. It is still bringing a religious assumption to the subject. Teaching history while choosing to leave God out of it (whether because that's your belief or just because it is mandated to leave it out), means that the history must be taught from a God-doesn't-exist (or a God-doesn't-have-anything-to-do-with-it) perspective. Still an assumption through which the subject is presented.

And, ehBeth, I've learned a little about Japanese religion (not too much). It's really interesting stuff. I was going to research it for a paper last spring, but my group switched topics around and I ended up with something else. I would have enjoyed learning about it.

0 Replies

Echi wrote:

Quote:

What assumptions might be found in a textbook concerning God's existence?

It's a decision that is made before the textbook is written. The decision is that either God exists and has something to do with the subject at hand , or He doesn't exist or had nothing to do with it. The author will write accordingly. Usually, he/she does not explicitly address God's existence/involvement; it is the omission or the addition that creates the assumption found in the textbook. Even if the writer believes in God, if he/she writes without adding God into the picture, the textbook is written based on the assumption that God doesn't exist or was not involved.

0 Replies

Edgar,

I never said I wanted a class based solely on the Bible. That is what this thread has been about. I never said not to teach about other religions' books, etc. Check my post to Phoenix earlier in this thread.

I said if it were taught as a religious text, then yes, it was only fair to teach other religions also.

0 Replies

Redeemed

I think I understand the point you're making about the textbooks, although I have my doubts about how real or noticeable effects actually are. Assuming it's a real problem, what do you think might be a solution? ...an end to public education?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Setanta,

Yeah, yeah. If you were indifferent, you'd ignore me, just as I intend to do with you from this point on. I see no reason to try to have a conversation with you. I have tried being civil and offering an olive branch and compromise. You're not interested. Fine.

Somebody get MOAN a crying towell. This topic interests me--whether or not you have and preserve faith is, as i pointed out, a matter of indifference to me. You never offer anything except the assertion of your religious creed, from which you retreat to "well, that's what i believe" when challenged, and then a huffy rejoinder about manners and how virtuously you treat everyone if someone persists in challenging your point of view. You don't come here to debate, just to promote your particular superstition.

0 Replies

Echi:

Quote:

I think I understand the point you're making about the textbooks, although I have my doubts about how real or noticeable effects actually are. Assuming it's a real problem, what do you think might be a solution? ...an end to public education?

To tell you honestly, I haven't reached a conclusion on that yet. It obviously wouldn't solve the problem include God in all textbooks - that's trading one biased situation for another. So that's certainly not what I'm proposing. I also don't think that ending public education is ideal. It would create so many problems - a lot more than it would fix.

School choice is already an available option. Unfortunately, private schools and homeschooling are very expensive. Vouchers or tax returns might not be a bad idea, but (to tell you the truth) I don't understand all of the economic issues surrounding that option. I'll look into it.

And about how real the effects are: Actually, I think you'd have to be a religious person to really understand the effects. I think it's hard for us as humans to recognize assumptions that match our own. It's like being a football fan, I guess. If we're in our team's town and we see their products all over the place, we don't even notice their assumption (which is that everyone loves their team and will buy products - which is a pretty valid assumption, usually). We don't notice because it's our team.

That may not be the best comparison... If it doesn't make sense, just tell me. It's getting kind of late where I am, and I don't think very well when I'm tired... Smile

0 Replies

New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know