Should the Bible be taught in US public schools.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You're talking about christianity being taught in school.

We're not saying "the Christian God is real." We're saying this is what Christianity is. This is where it came from. This is how it influences our culture.

An education about how the bible is actually pertinant to American society and this is how it is not. This is how the Bible has been changed, this is how it hasn't. The Bible has a role and society and there are places it doesn't and shouldn't be. Different peope interpret things in these different ways.

That sort of education is essential for Christians and non-Christians living in the US at this time.

Originally posted by Alliance
We're not saying "the Christian God is real." We're saying this is what Christianity is. This is where it came from. This is how it influences our culture.

An education about how the bible is actually pertinant to American society and this is how it is not. This is how the Bible has been changed, this is how it hasn't. The Bible has a role and society and there are places it doesn't and shouldn't be. Different peope interpret things in these different ways.

That sort of education is essential for Christians and non-Christians living in the US at this time.

Originally posted by Alliance
Is anything actually taught from an objective perspective?

Yes. Math is pretty objective. Reading and writing are pretty objective. Even sex ed can be objective. And asking if anything can be taught objectively should certainly apply more heavily to christianity than it should math or chemistry.

I understand the question you're asking with the thread Aliiance. But I disagree with it for all the reasons I've mentioned. The bible can be "taught" in various ways that categorize it as a historical document, but that's not what we're talking about. You can't discuss human history without bringing up the bible. So, I'm not saying it can't be mentioned in public schools in regards to it's historical signifigance. I'm saying it doesn't need to be taught in public school as if it were a text book.

Originally posted by Regret
Which is just as stupid as Capt. Fantastic. Alliance has my point: Idiots teaching evolution are why so many people have a poor view of evolution. That doesn't mean it should not be taught. I would rather kids learn about religion in school than hear it from some of the fanatics that are on here from time to time.

What's stupid about stating that your position is based on your religious choices?

So, idiots teaching evolution is worse than idiots teaching the bible? What this really means is your definition of idiot, which really just means anyone who doesn't think that god created the whole world. Nor have you answered my question about being objective were you the teacher charged with explaining christianity and other world religions to these children. But, you'd rather kids hear about religion in school than "on the streets"? What's that? Is that like saying kids should learn about sex from their parents before they hear about it on the streets?

Originally posted by Alliance
We're not saying "the Christian God is real." We're saying this is what Christianity is. This is where it came from. This is how it influences our culture.

NO, that's what you, Alliance, are saying. That is not what regret or Nellinator are saying. They can't enter this thread and honestly think that anyone familiar with their post history doesn't realize that. Suddenly, they're all for equal treatment and consideration for other religions? No, it's because they know that christianity would be addressed with a prejudicial preference if it were taught by teachers in the US public school system.

You can't teach human history without bringing up the bible and christianity, any more than you could the Roman religions of the past. No one is disagreeing with that. But teaching chrisianity as a religion to be explored is not the place of the public school system in the United States of America.

Originally posted by Alliance
pertinant to American society and this is how it is not.

And when the child of an over zealous christian goes home and tells his mother that there are aspects of the christian religion that they, themselves, have always been told were pertinant? When little Bobby Christian comes home and tells his father that Thomas Jefferson cut up a bible and removed the divine aspects of Jesus H. Christ from the story all together? And vice versa. What happens when little Susie Atheist goes home and tells her mother that some of the founding fathers were Christians, and some had their religion firmly in mind when they set up this country?

Once again, leave the bible at home.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
If you were a teacher and taught a world religion class, can you honestly say you wouldn't allow your preference for christianity above all other religions to effect how you taught the "other religions" to those kids?

I could. Damn near anyone could. Do you think me, Nellinator, or Regret would tell the class "Chrisitianity is the only valid religion! All other religions stray from the true path....hell, the Hindus worship a 'god' with pink skin, four arms and an elephant head. Thats idolatry!"? Of course not.

You can teach a religion without sounding like a street-corner preacher. "This religion is called Buddhism, they believe this, this, and that". And you like you said, you cant teach world history without bringing up religions; its impossible.

I don't think it's possible to be 100% objective no matter who is teaching it...Theist or Atheist. WE should teach religion though, so that people actually learn about it, and can come up with more educated decisions as to what to do with it.

Capt Fant. you proposed that religion should stay with the parents and away from school...that parents alone should teach thier children the religion, and no one else. That is quite dangerous. Most Americans are ignorant of thier own religion. Parents will teach from a completely personal bias standpoint, and will definately not teach objectively. They will only teach thier children the parts of the religion they favor, and ignore the rest.

In a school setting where a religion is examined as anything else would be, a child has the ability to expand and learn, then make a better decision.

Present the question like this:

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Do you think Nellinator or Regret would tell the class "Chrisitianity is the only valid religion!

Yes, I do.

As for you, you don't have a post history conemning all religions other than your own. You don't have a post history that involves bringing up your religion, even if it's totally off topic. They do. They can't come on an internet forum without talking about their religious preference. Sound like a familiar accusation?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Present the question like this:

Yes, I do.

As for you, you don't have a post history conemning all religions other than your own. You don't have a post history that involves bringing up your religion, even if it's totally off topic. They do. They can't come on an internet forum without talking about their religious preference. Sound like a familiar accusation?

Thats because my religion doesn't dominate my day or my every little thought. And I never bring up my religion unless Im directly asked. So I think I could teach that stuff objectively.

As for Regret and Nellinator, I don't think they'd say something so offensive to a group of relative strangers.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali

Capt Fant. you proposed that religion should stay with the parents and away from school...that parents alone should teach thier children the religion, and no one else. That is quite dangerous. Most Americans are ignorant of thier own religion. Parents will teach from a completely personal bias standpoint, and will definately not teach objectively. They will only teach thier children the parts of the religion they favor, and ignore the rest.

The ****ed up part about this is that it really is dependent on the individual. Even if one were to learn objectively, so to speak, they will be swayed by their surroundings and it's paradigms. It's a screwy discussion

The Bible is not a matter of examination. And doubtably even true.

Not for schools

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

As for Regret and Nellinator, I don't think they'd say something so offensive to a group of relative strangers.

They are on a message board. how much more of a stranger can one be?

Originally posted by chithappens
They are on a message board. how much more of a stranger can one be?

Different ballgame.

The net is completely anonymous, seeing a person everyday for an hour who you have to listen to is a lot different from posting on the internet.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I don't think it's possible to be 100% objective no matter who is teaching it...

"it" being religion? No. That's my point.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Capt Fant. you proposed that religion should stay with the parents and away from school...that parents alone should teach thier children the religion, and no one else. That is quite dangerous. Most Americans are ignorant of thier own religion. Parents will teach from a completely personal bias standpoint, and will definately not teach objectively. They will only teach thier children the parts of the religion they favor, and ignore the rest.

I never said that religion can't be mentioned. But religion is a personal matter to be handled in the home by the parents, not reinforced one way or the other by the public schools.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
In a school setting where a religion is examined as anything else would be, a child has the ability to expand and learn, then make a better decision.

"I don't think it's possible to be 100% objective"

It can't be both.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As for Regret and Nellinator, I don't think they'd say something so offensive to a group of relative strangers.

I don't think they'd be offensive; I just don't think they'd be objective.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Thats because my religion doesn't dominate my day or my every little thought. And I never bring up my religion unless Im directly asked. So I think I could teach that stuff objectively.

As for Regret and Nellinator, I don't think they'd say something so offensive to a group of relative strangers.

It depends what they consider offensive....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
"it" being religion? No. That's my point.

ok

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I never said that religion can't be mentioned. But religion is a personal matter to be handled in the home by the parents, [b]not reinforced one way or the other by the public schools.[/B]

But when parents teach it it becomes more dangerous because:

1) Your average parent is not a professional teacher. Parents will also put thier own biases into the teaching of thier religion, there's no way around that. The teaching will be entirely dictated by what the parent wants thier kid to beleive, not but any set cirriculum.

2) If a standard cirriculum is required for a teacher to abide by, then the teacher cannot simply enforce the religion down the student's throats. And we're not talking about little kids here, we are talking about High Schoolers, who by this time have enough ability to decide for themselves. You ARE aware that teachers must present a set plan for the cirriculum to the Board of Education and the School before they are allowed to teach that year, right ?

3) Teaching is NOT reinforcing. If you and I explain to people what it's like to be a Homosexual, is that forcing kids or teenagers to actually be homosexual?

❌

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

"I don't think it's possible to be 100% objective"

It can't be both.

A teacher couldn't be 100% objective on either side. A Theist would insist the religion has some truth. An Atheist would insist the religion is total bullshit....either way, the student still has the ability to decipher on his or her own. Students do not gobble up everything thier teacher says....give them some credit.

Parents, however, have more power over thier son or daughter's opinions....

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
It depends what they consider offensive....

Displaying an overt bias during a lecture, especially about religion, would be offensive.

edit

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Displaying an overt bias during a lecture, especially about religion, would be offensive.

Would saying that "God exists" be an overt bias during the lecture ? It's a simple quote, yet some people will find that very offensive.

Something being offensive is not black or white....its complicated.

There are too many variations to speak in general terms

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Would saying that "God exists" be an overt bias during the lecture ?

Does a bear shit in the woods?

Saying "Muslims believe there is only on god in existence." is objective reporting. But saying that God does exist isnt.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
But when parents teach it it becomes more dangerous because:

1) Your average parent is not a professional teacher. Parents will also put thier own biases into the teaching of thier religion, there's no way around that. The teaching will be entirely dictated by what the parent wants thier kid to beleive, not but any set cirriculum.

2) If a standard cirriculum is required for a teacher to abide by, then the teacher cannot simply enforce the religion down the student's throats. And we're not talking about little kids here, we are talking about High Schoolers, who by this time have enough ability to decide for themselves. You ARE aware that teachers must present a set plan for the cirriculum to the Board of Education and the School before they are allowed to teach that year, right ?

3) Teaching is NOT reinforcing. If you and I explain to people what it's like to be a Homosexual, is that forcing kids or teenagers to [b]actually be homosexual? [/B]

1,2,3) And when the aboslute truth defined for them by their parents is not reinforced by their public education, would that not make them more inclined to question that absolute truth?

3) Teaching without a bias is not reinforcing. Teaching with a bias absolutely is reinforcing. This can be done by a teacher who is a christian, just as it can happen if the teacher is gay. But is it not a dangerous path to walk when you can't be sure of the teacher's intentions?

2) Telling a school board or the school administration what you're going to say is not the same as walking into that class room and saying it.

1) No, your average parent is not a professional teacher, but they are a professional parent.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
....give them some credit.

Parents, however, have more power over thier son or daughter's opinions....

I give the kids more credit than I do the adults. I've always given kids the credit to figure things out for themselves. That's how I did it. And I was taught to be a christian in both my home and in my school.

And I think the majority of influence comes from their peers, much moreso than from their parents or their teachers. So, from that perspective the whole thread would be a moot point. It's the adults in this country that think they have a major say in the development of their kids, not the kids who think they do.