CHRISTIAN DECEIT

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

One of our members, who frequently touts the benefits of religion, while personally deploring homosexual marriage and other "sinful" aspects of modern society, started a thread based upon a dubious statistical review. That review was graced, unjustifiably, with the name "study," and purported to show that church attendance results in reduced rates of "deviant" behavior (this so-called study frequently referred to terms such as "deviant," which, left undefined, constitutes one of the principle objections to the fuzzy-thought kind of exercise which the document represents).

However, that didn't go far enough for that member, who claimed that one of our social problems is that god and religion cannot be mentioned in school.

So i would like someone who believes that no god or religion in a publicly-funded school is a problem to explain to me why it is a problem. Ought not the teaching of religion be better left to parents in the home? How could someone be certain that what their children would learn in school would be consonant with the dogmatic canon? Do the proponents of the introduction of religion into public schools in the United States simply assume that the religion introduced will be christian? Is there a generic brand of christianity which one can assume is palatable to all those who claim to be christians? Do such supporters of religion in public schools simply assume that there won't be equal time for Judaism and Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism--or is that O.K. with them?

My basic thesis is that religion in schools would be bad from a believers point of view, as well as that of the non-believer, because their children could all too easily be exposed to doctrines which they consider false.

Someone care to 'splain this to me?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,839 • Replies: 36

No top replies

I can't explain it. As a teacher, I wouldn't want to be responsible for delivering religious dogma of any stripe to anyone else's children.
As a parent I don't want anyone else delivering it to my children.
And as a citizen who sees first hand on a daily basis how very little time is actually spent on quality, focused learning, I don't think such a subjective and amorphous subject offers a viable common sense option in the already too hurried and stuffed full public school curriculum.

I read the thread in question and I understand the allure of thinking that a stable and positively reinforcing family-based belief system could be transferred and "taught" to every child-but I think that's impractical, impossible and just one more instance of wishful thinking that will lead these kids down another dead end and waste more time.

0 Replies

Thanks for a thoughtful response, Aidan.

Another problem which the religious are not likely to recognize is that families cannot reasonably be assumed to be loving and supportive of their children simply because said family is a "church-going" family. There is horrible abuse within religiously motivated families, just as there is in families without that motivation. I'm glad you brought that up, because it entails, in my opinion, a false set of positive assumptions about the nature of religiously-motivated people simply because they are religiously-motivated.

0 Replies

No matter what religious dogma you teach in school it will be against some else's beliefs and dogma. Since you can't teach all the different types of religious dogma, as it will take time away from the more important things that need to be taught, it should be kept out of school and remain in the homes of the students.

0 Replies

Teaching religion has no place in public schools.

However, teaching about religion has. Insofar as religion has been an
influence on human history, it is import that children learn about it.
Otherwise, you may get world leaders describing military compaigns in
the Middle East as "Crusades" and thinking that naming them such places
them in a favorable light. To Muslims "Crusade" is about as negative a
term as can be.

0 Replies

I always taught the Bible as literature, Setanta. Still wonder if Shakespeare did the King James version.

0 Replies

You talk of religion being taught and which one if not a generic one being in tune with other peoples beliefs. While that would cause an issue with what different families believe and would cause consistency issues and make people unhappy. Well the same thing could be said for the secular dogma that is social engineering currently going on in schools today.

I will use homosexuality as a prime example. Kids are being taught today that homosexuality is a fine thing in society when there are lots of families out there that don't think it is. Most of you see this teaching as fine because it goes with what you believe. How do you justify social engineering being taught in schools as ok when not everyone believes the same thing?

0 Replies

My wife wants our children to be educated in her religion. We send my son to church school once a week. I do not want religion, of any form, to be taught in public school. If people want to teach their children about their religion, they are free to do so on their own time. It is not the responsibility of the public schools to do so.

0 Replies

George wrote:

Teaching religion has no place in public schools.

However, teaching about religion has. Insofar as religion has been an
influence on human history, it is import that children learn about it.
Otherwise, you may get world leaders describing military compaigns in
the Middle East as "Crusades" and thinking that naming them such places
them in a favorable light. To Muslims "Crusade" is about as negative a
term as can be.

This is a sensible response. The remark which lead me to start this thread was a contention to the effect that there was far less "deviant" behavior among children whose families attend church, and that therefore, children should not be taught that there is no place for god and religion in schools. This i took to be a call for teaching religion in school, and not being taught about religion.

******************************

Miss Letty, about the only literary value of religion of which i can think would be, as an example, using the King James bible to introduce the student to the differences between early modern English and contemporary English. I would definitely see that as a topic appropriate only to the oldest of secondary students, if not to be restricted to college students. I could not see any value in such a course if presented to elementary school students, or middle school students.

********************************

Baldimo:

http://shoutluton.com/attractions/images/strawman.jpg

0 Replies

Letty wrote:

I always taught the Bible as literature, Setanta. Still wonder if Shakespeare did the King James version.

I just noticed the Shakespeare comment. The scholars whom King James convened to produce the new translation are known, but i never made an effort to learn their names. So, i'll go see what i can find.

0 Replies

Miss Letty, you can read a history of the King James bible here.

0 Replies

No strawman at all. It is a reasonable question. If people don't want religion taught in schools because of different beliefs then how come social engineering is ok? If you're afraid to answer the question then I understand but both subjects have different views by different people.

The social teaching in schools is widely accepted because to many people in the school system (teachers and admins) agree with the social teaching. Look no further then the teachers unions and who they work with and who they provide money to.

0 Replies

I don't want any subjects that introduce subjective morals and values taught to my children in school- precisely because you cannot be certain what stance will be taken by each individual teacher, and some teachers believe it is their role to influence and indoctrinate. I don't want my kids indoctrinated. And I don't want to indoctrinate anyone else's kids.

Even though in my case, I am understanding that homosexuality is just another expression of sexuality and I do believe that that sort of love should be honored just as heterosexual love is honored. But I still don't want strangers I don't know talking about it with my children during the six hours of the school day (really, only about four of which are uninterrupted, focused learning time) at the expense of their instruction in science, math, english grammar, history, and perhaps foreign language and an art or music class. Even gym class, though a sad necessity, would be unnecessary in school if kids were made to spend a few hours outside after school, by their parents, or if YWCA's and community centers would make their services available at no cost.

And I don't buy the argument that my kids get instruction on certain issues from me at home, but other kids don't. Maybe our society is so screwed up that the majority of parents don't do their jobs in these areas and while I am sympathetic to the unmet needs of the kids, I see that what they most need is to be proficient in academic skills so they can get the hell out of the situation they're in at some point in their lives and make something of themselves, which religious and ethical and moral education will not really contribute towards.

Because, the fact remains, moral and ethical caretaking is not what school is designed to be or do for people. If we need to create another social construct or agency to fulfill those needs, alright then, but we need to stop blurring the lines of what a school is supposed to be and do, or we will never achieve success within the original parameters of its purpose which are "academic education".

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

I will use homosexuality as a prime example. Kids are being taught today that homosexuality is a fine thing in society when there are lots of families out there that don't think it is. Most of you see this teaching as fine because it goes with what you believe. How do you justify social engineering being taught in schools as ok when not everyone believes the same thing?

Are you making the claim that homosexuality should be treated the same as Christianity in the schools?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

I will use homosexuality as a prime example. Kids are being taught today that homosexuality is a fine thing in society when there are lots of families out there that don't think it is. Most of you see this teaching as fine because it goes with what you believe. How do you justify social engineering being taught in schools as ok when not everyone believes the same thing?

Are you making the claim that homosexuality should be treated the same as Christianity in the schools?

Any type of social engineering should be treated in school as religion is. If they want to talk about the new deal that was set up by Roosevelt then fine but the teachers shouldn't stand up at the front of the class and tell the students that their isn't enough social programs and that more money should be spent on them. Same thing goes for religion. If the teacher wants to talk about religion then teach the basics. Christianity came about this way, Islam came about this way, and Judaism came about this way. Trying to push one religion over another isn't the way to do it. Teaching children how to pray isn't the way either. The basics of each religion can be taught in a few days each. It doesn't take 3 weeks of school to teach about Islam. You don't need to make the children dress up in Muslim outfits and have them take Muslim names. That is unfair treatment of religions because they won't do the same for other religions.

0 Replies

I agree with your last post, and your point about Roosevelt (teaching the history without giving the teachers political opinion as fact) is a fine point.

But your point about Homosexuality is way off. Consider what you said with one small change.

Quote:

I will use Christianity as a prime example. Kids are being taught today that Christianity is a fine thing in society when there are lots of families out there that don't think it is. Most of you see this teaching as fine because it goes with what you believe.

The fact is that Christianity is a lifestyle choice that, in spite of the fact there are parents who disapprove, is part of our society and our community.

If schools try to pretend that Christianity doesn't exist, or try to avoid any positive depictions of Christianity, it is not only bad for kids who know Christians (or even have Christian parents), it is also bad education.

Kids should not be made uncomfortable for talking about Christianity as Christians may be an important part of many of their lives.

Of course, kids shouldn't be allowed to practice Christianity at school, but talking about, and learning about a part of society in a positive way is an important part of an education.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I agree with your last post, and your point about Roosevelt (teaching the history without giving the teachers political opinion as fact) is a fine point.

But your point about Homosexuality is way off. Consider what you said with one small change.

Quote:

I will use Christianity as a prime example. Kids are being taught today that Christianity is a fine thing in society when there are lots of families out there that don't think it is. Most of you see this teaching as fine because it goes with what you believe.

The fact is that Christianity is a lifestyle choice that, in spite of the fact there are parents who disapprove, is part of our society and our community.

If schools try to pretend that Christianity doesn't exist, or try to avoid any positive depictions of Christianity, it is not only bad for kids who know Christians (or even have Christian parents), it is also bad education.

Kids should not be made uncomfortable for talking about Christianity as Christians may be an important part of many of their lives.

Of course, kids shouldn't be allowed to practice Christianity at school, but talking about, and learning about a part of society in a positive way is an important part of an education.

If you don't think this already happens to Christian kids in schools then you don't read the news. With the end of the school year approching how many more law suits are we going to see where Validvictorians are going to be banned from mentioning God in their commencent speechs? They aren't speaking for the school but are asked to give their own speechs and every year we hear the students are prevented from talking about how God had an influence in their lives.

I just posted a story yesterday about how a student was not allowed to wear a costume of Jesus for Halloween and now his parents are sueing.

0 Replies

My positions are consistant in this matter. (And yes, schools adminstrations often screw up in many different ways.)

You will note my response to your Holloween story thread.

0 Replies

On the topic of religion being taught in Schools, you only have to look at the Islamic religious schools to see that it can sometimes go too far.

Now, I don't suggest that teaching Christianity in schools would over go so far, nor that Christianity is anywhere near as dangerous in it's teachings as Islam can be, but if you object to one religion being taught, then you must on principle object to all religions being taught in schools.

That said, I have no objection to students being taught about religion (as opposed to being taught religion).

On the topic of the birth of mankind, I see no harm in informing students of other peoples beliefs (as opposed to evolution that is), though science as always, should remain the focus.

However, as far as religion being taught in schools to increase the moral fortitude of the population, that is just another form of tyranny - you can't dictate peoples beliefs to them, nor is it right to attempt to instill in children beliefs counter to what the parents teach at home. Parents can bring children up fine without the need for religion and for relgions to say otherwise is deceitful, which of course, is against most relgions Shocked

PS. I respect religions, and know many fine people who bear religious beliefs, but I also recognise some 'religious' people are overly convinced of the superiorness of their moral righteousness (as compared to non religious peoples)

0 Replies

Vikorr, i would point out to you that my objections are only to the teaching of religion in public, tax-supported schools. Furthermore, i only refer to public schools in the United States; although i don't mean to say that no other situation should be discussed in this thread. If private schools want to teach religion, i don't have a problem with that, i only have a problem with any school which receives tax money teaching religion.

***********************************

It's still a strawman, Baldimo, because you make claims about what people here do or don't believe with regard to homosexuality. You don't know what people believe unless and until they tell you, therefore, making an argument based upon an assumption of what someone believes without actually knowing it constitutes the construction of a strawman.

0 Replies

CHRISTIAN DECEIT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know