I agree with that, cello. Religion doesn't belong in school.
When I was in grade school christianity was one of theclasses being taught. I can still remember the way they tried to glorify christianity at the expense of all other religions.
Later, in what I guess is the equivalent of high school, the class was replaced by one called religion, and this time we were taught about all the religions of the world. Much better. It was more of a history class.
I wouldn't object to a Comparative Religions class, if it were done the right way, in high school.
It would be difficult for teachers who do not have a deeper understanding or knowledge of other religions not to present a biased view, and also much is subject to the teacher's interpretation. Religion is a subjective topic. People even rewrite history to lessen or deny the crimes that their country has committed towards others.
cello wrote:It would be difficult for teachers who do not have a deeper understanding or knowledge of other religions not to present a biased view, and also much is subject to the teacher's interpretation. Religion is a subjective topic. People even rewrite history to lessen or deny the crimes that their country has committed towards others.
I agree. Which is why I hedged by saying, "if done right." Actually, such a class could become biased based on the students' reactions, as well. A Hindu concept is presented by the text. A student ridicules it, and the class joins in, until the serious student is deprived of the chance to learn. Pitfalls. The same could happen in a science class, however. In the eighth grade, 1956, we were reading the one or two page description of evolution out of the text. One student said, "I didn't come from no monkey." The class became distracted from the knowledge on the page and we never revisited that section. You are dealing with emotional people, whether in a science class or a religion class. All a matter of judgement and chances you are willing to take in pursuit of learning.
Yes, Edgar, I noted your "reservation", for that I was saying that there would not be many teachers who could do it right.
As for the science class, they should just have discussed more about whether the theory of evolution is correct. That is learning to me, not accepting blindly what is taught in the books, but questioning it. Although I did not read the book of Darwin, it seems to me that if men evolved from apes, that does not explain why apes still exist.
Quote:I wouldn't object to a Comparative Religions class, if it were done the right way, in high school.
Ours was taught by a teacher that had no personal adherence to any religion at all. That's why I could endure it. But the christians in my class were always insulted when we spoke of islam and the other religions in equal tones as we did christianity. Great fun
cello wrote:Yes, Edgar, I noted your "reservation", for that I was saying that there would not be many teachers who could do it right.
As for the science class, they should just have discussed more about whether the theory of evolution is correct. That is learning to me, not accepting blindly what is taught in the books, but questioning it. Although I did not read the book of Darwin, it seems to me that if men evolved from apes, that does not explain why apes still exist.
One might just as well ask why all apes aren't gorillas, or Chimps. There was a common ancestor to humans and apes. The lineage branched into different ape types, of which we are just one.
Quote:Although I did not read the book of Darwin, it seems to me that if men evolved from apes, that does not explain why apes still exist.
As I see it, apes are on the same evolutionary track as humans. They are merely the next batch. When today's humans were apes, today's apes were something else, on their way to becoming apes...
cello said: "As for the science class, they should just have discussed more about whether the theory of evolution is correct. That is learning to me, not accepting blindly what is taught in the books, but questioning it."
My point was, the class was disrupted from even knowing what the theory of evolution claims. Without the basics, discussion of that sort is pointless and futile. Same with a class in comparative religion, or anything else.
Edgar, I was thinking about the teacher's point of view, to be able to take control and steer back to the subject. But I can imagine how difficult it would be to teach a class of teenagers.
True. In the instance I cited, the teacher just allowed the topic to wither without teaching or discussion.
Maybe he did not believe too strongly in the theory of evolution himself.
Possibly. But, he may have been afraid to incite the students' anger and have controversy.
There could be that also. I read somewhere a teacher was fired for raising a controversy about the subject he was teaching.
There is a fine line between inciting and people being overly sensitive, too. A teacher that won't teach is not really a teacher, no matter what is printed on his or her pay check.
Cello, one must not "believe in" the "theory of evolution."
First, it's NOT a belief in the religious sense of the term, and, secondly, as I understand it, the proper way to refer to evolution is "evolutionary theory". It is a grand model for the coordination of findings from many sciences, e.g., genetics, archaeology, geology, biology. It is not a 'simple' hypothesis that has or has not yet been tested. If you accept the findings of genetics, archaeology, geology and biology, you are on your way to understanding (and thereby accepting provisionally) evolutionary theory (not the "theory of" evolution).
Edgar, I agree with you.
JL, thanks for the explanation, I really did not know it was so complex. I will try to find time to read the book one day, always meant to. By the way, wasn't there some writing recently about the theory that it was wrong or at least questioned, I think it was in the newspaper a few months ago.
Cello, my knowledge of evolutionary theory is limited. Among A2K members Farmerman is the best informed. My point is that the inevitable limiations, faults and errors within the "evolving" process of evolutionary theory pertains to issues within the general paradigm, but not to a definitive verification or falsification of some global hypothesis (the "theory/hypothesis" of evolution).
snood wrote:Is the statement that "atheism is not controversial" in the above mentioned countries made from anecdotal/personal experience, or from something more substantial (or simply common knowledge, not subject to further examination)?
As you may know from my avatar, I'm Canadian and have wandered about to some fair degree in Canada. Let me put it this way, if I took a large placard with the emblazoned words "I Am An Atheist" and went about my business I might be found controversial; not for maintaining the belief in atheism, but for bothering to lug around a big stupid sign advertising the fact!
Regarding the unusual degree of "religiosity" in America which might render "atheism controversial" I have a simplistic theory. Since the USA has been historically "a melting pot" immigrants used religion as opposed to language or historical artifacts to satisfy a basic need for "group identity". The fact that there was no single state religion combined with the "pioneering spirit" rendered each of the plethora of alternative religions fiercley self assertive to the extent that those who do not participate in such an ideological free market are considered somehow to be "un-american".
So there it is in a nutshell
