Why are we still discussing this?
Look, let me be clear on this topic once and for all:
No court, state or federal, says you *can't* pray in government schools.
What it does say is that no government employee(teachers in this case) has the right to *LEAD* prayers or religious beliefs upon students in a government operated institution. It is not their responsibility nor should it ever would be. It is unconstitutional and for very good reason too.
Learning the Bible, Koran, Torah or whatever rests upon solely the INDIVIDUAL.
END. OF. DISCUSSION.
Originally posted by Alliance
The bible is a product of the Church, and no less a product than some students that are already in the classroom.
Mind re-wording that? If you meant it exactly that way then, yea...
Besides the Danger Argument is enough to normally sweep this idea under the rug.
Weird arguments for it...
Things that are culturally significant should be taught as culture. The Bible is a major part of culture, so is the Koran so they should both be covered. It doesn't have to be in great detail, but the basics are important to understand.
I've been thinking about this and I definitely think that the above two should be covered, but I have doubts as to whether religions that lack cultural impact and are more subdued and philosophical should be taught as they lack relevance to the society. Thoughts?
Ultimately if it is to be taught there needs to be a strict cirriculm with clear objectives that don't leave room for preachiness or bashing. That is the main problem I'm afraid though.
I made this thread specifically discussing US schools for a reason. The Quran does not have a real presnce in the US. The Bible is one of the most significant cultural and literary works in the Western world and in the US.
I can assure you that it can be taught without preaching from presonal experience and it helps a lot of people see what the bible actually is and not what they are told it is.
Originally posted by Alliance
No. Its not the end of the discussion. Some schools, including my former High School, have it as part of the cirriculum.
You kidding me? Where are you from really? Is your school private? If so, then that would be something else entirely, a whole other case.
But no *public* school has the right to teach religion. To do so goes against the constitution and is illegal.
Originally posted by Alliance
I made this thread specifically discussing US schools for a reason. The Quran does not have a real presnce in the US. The Bible is one of the most significant cultural and literary works in the Western world and in the US.I can assure you that it can be taught without preaching from presonal experience and it helps a lot of people see what the bible actually is and not what they are told it is.
There are various issues with what you said there, but here are the most obvious:
- The Bible can not be taught without avoiding some sort of personal interpretation. Everyone does not follow the Bible the same way.
How is the Bible to be taught?
- Also, saying the Quran has no real presence, first is an a$$hole thing to say and brings up the "Danger Argument."
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm from Chicago. I went to a public school.A public school does not have the right to preach religion, but they have both the right to teach what religion is and to teach its holy texts.
You mean to study and analyze it like any other Literature, not trying to install beliefs upon students? Is this what you mean? Then you have an interesting point.
But preaching is one form of teaching. Wouldn't you agree?
Teaching it as literature would be similar to teaching Shakespeare and is pointless. Teaching it culturally is what it should be. Preaching and teaching are different in a few ways, one way being the expectation following preaching in that you act on and believe what you have learned because you think it is relevant. Teaching would be something like "Christians believe that Jesus dying on the cross was the fulfillment of the OT lawand the Jewish Passover in that he is considered the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins." That is teaching as no expectations are attached to it. Teaching is useful in churches yes, but belief is a necessary precursor to its effectiveness.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Teaching it as literature would be similar to teaching Shakespeare and is pointless. Teaching it culturally is what it should be. Preaching and teaching are different in a few ways, one way being the expectation following preaching in that you act on and believe what you have learned because you think it is relevant. Teaching would be something like "Christians believe that Jesus dying on the cross was the fulfillment of the OT lawand the Jewish Passover in that he is considered the perfect sacrifice to atone for our sins." That is teaching as no expectations are attached to it. Teaching is useful in churches yes, but belief is a necessary precursor to its effectiveness.
While I agree to some extents, not everyone thinks the same thing. Put it like this: if there was a federal law saying that religious text should be "taught to students" the biggest interest group gets their view of whatever text to be taught. That's my only issue with it, but sadly it's a big issue
Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
You mean to study and analyze it like any other Literature, not trying to install beliefs upon students? Is this what you mean? Then you have an interesting point.
Thats exactly what I mean.
Originally posted by CosmicSurfer
But preaching is one form of teaching. Wouldn't you agree?
Not at all. Preaching is a combination of telling and indoctrination. Teaching involves the encouragement of critical analysis.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Teaching it as literature would be similar to teaching Shakespeare and is pointless.
Not at all. As someone who has studied it as literature. It has a lot of value. Its literary merits form the foundation of Western culture. You wouldn't be able to understand the culture if you didn't understand the text.
Originally posted by Alliance
You wouldn't be able to understand the culture if you didn't understand the text.
Mind giving an example of why it's essential to understanding the culture? Even if you mean to say the West, I don't think you have to understand hardly anything about the Bible to understand the culture.
History and revolutions, maybe, but certainly it's not important to understanding modern culture.
Originally posted by AllianceWhat I'm getting at is that teaching it as literature is in part okay as it is a literary masterpiece imo (Psalm), but if you are teaching it only as literature and not as culture you are missing a great part of what it is from a secular standpoint. If it is being only taught as literature there is no question that it is not a bad thing imo as much of its literary value can be taught without ever touching theology.
Not at all. As someone who has studied it as literature. It has a lot of value. Its literary merits form the foundation of Western culture. You wouldn't be able to understand the culture if you didn't understand the text.
Originally posted by chithappens
Mind giving an example of why it's essential to understanding the culture? Even if you mean to say the West, I don't think you have to understand hardly anything about the Bible to understand the culture.History and revolutions, maybe, but certainly it's not important to understanding modern culture.
Then all I can say is you have a very limited view of what culture is.
Originally posted by Nellinator
What I'm getting at is that teaching it as literature is in part okay as it is a literary masterpiece imo (Psalm), but if you are teaching it only as literature and not as culture you are missing a great part of what it is from a secular standpoint. If it is being only taught as literature there is no question that it is not a bad thing imo as much of its literary value can be taught without ever touching theology.
Not every aspect of everything must be addressed in every class. It would be impossible to teach a complete view of ANY subject. It literary aspects are quite interesting and its absurdly easy to see how stories like Cain and Abel (my personal favorite), Genesis, The ressurection, the crucifiction, Moses, etc have dramatic effects on culture. There is no clear line between literature and culture becuase literature is part of culture.
I never said that it should only be taught in terms of literature. I disagreed with your statement that teaching the Bible as literature would be "pointless."
North American culture is actual quite specific. Religion is a major player in North America and affects almost everything you do, including the laws that you are supposed to follow. That is why it is so very culturally relevant. What are there 50 million church goers in the United States? That's a massive chunk of the population. The option of choosing to learn about these 50 million people should be there imo.
Originally posted by chithappens
You can EASILY understand culture without religion. You don't even say what culture: all culture, pop culture? Be more specific. You are not even explaining what you mean to say. I'm not a mind reader. You don't even say what you think culture is and yes it matters.
US culture.
Originally posted by Nellinator
North American culture is actual quite specific. Religion is a major player in North America and affects almost everything you do, including the laws that you are supposed to follow. That is why it is so very culturally relevant. What are there 50 million church goers in the United States? That's a massive chunk of the population. The option of choosing to learn about these 50 million people should be there imo.
...and an even greater percentage historically. However, I'd say the majority of Chirstians in the US know very little about the Bible or the history of their religion. I think it is the duty of the US public education system to teach students of this nations' Christian, religious, and non-religious histories and philosophies and how it has impacted our lives historically, in the present, and in the future (the foundation of any hummanities class)