Randman's call for nonSecular education...

Thanks for illustrating my point here, maybe better than I could. The following may be preaching to the choir, but oh well.....No one objects to Greek mythology, even though it is religion, and they don't because no one beleives it.The Bible is even more relevant in terms of both literature and history than the Greek pantheon, but the secularists are so afraid that someone might believe the Bible, they have basically banned it from education, although some courses have been insituted in recent years.Imo, considering the Bible is 66 books and theology quite extensive, I think it deserves a class dedicated over a number of years from junior high into high school, for people to be educated, and after that, perhaps later in high school, other culture's religious books and theology should also be taught so people receive a basic education.

But in response to an early comment, there is a difference between teaching about religion and teaching people to believe. If you don't do the first, you are not properly educating people, but you should not require anyone to believe.If you don't know the books of the Bible, the ideas and stories within, and it would take more than one or two classes to familiarize yourself with it, and you don't understand the various Christian theologies, you basically don't know that much about Western history, and are ignorant in some relevant areas as far as literature. So over a period of several years, students should be taught a class on these things.After that, they should be taught about the religion and the religious books of other cultures in the world, and some of that culture here as well.Unless you understand the religion of a people or a culture, or as in America, part of the culture, then you don't really understand the culture.I also think with the rise of less religion in some cultures, certain ideologies should be included too. You've got to educate students in the basic beliefs and paradigms governing the mentality of various cultures/soceities, nations, and groups.

Well, I was referring to high school, junior high and middle school really. I think if you are going to teach history and American history, you need to also teach the Bible and theology, preferably as both a separate course to get people up to speed and within history classes, the role and ideas of religion need to be addressed. It is deplorable, for example, that a high school graduate not understand the Reformation and the centuries following which shaped Europe and America.Same with literature, although you don't really need a separate course for that. In college, the Bible as literature can be interesting, but I think just being familiar with the Bible is enough for high school literature classes.

That's why I think the subject should begin in junior high, maybe middle school. It is a lot to study and learn, but they already teach a lot of fluff, make kids waste time on all sorts of projects, etc,...I guess I think an in-depth history education is essential, more so even than science. Science is great for scientists,and it's important to introduce people to science at a young age so they can decide if they want to pursue it more seriously in college and professionally, but the average person out there doesn't really need a lot or use a lot of science they learn in high school, but we are called as citizens every day to understand and make decisions where understanding our own roots and what other people beleive and think is very, very important.So I would reverse some things a bit, and mandate more in-depth understanding of history and religion for grades 5-12, and if necessary, cut back on requirements in other areas including science and language if necessary and definitely home ec and some other stuff.Then again, I think art is also more necessary for educating the mind than schools seem to think.This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 01:42 AM

Yep, music too.I guess I would say a 4-5 year period where one class is devoted to theology, the Bible, and the last year to other religions and their beliefs as well as secular philosophies, would be adequate to at least make sure there is a basic understanding there.I think history books should put more stress on the role of religion in history.In terms of literature, you could be right that other ancient books are as important, but they are not critical to understanding history and culture, as the Bible and theology are.

That's what I wrote already, but after they have learned the Bible and the various Christian theologies that have shaped Western history.

I believe that American and Western history should be emphasized first because we live in America. Understand yourself and then your neighbor. There's no evil agenda, but in typical fashion, you resort to personal character attacks, sort of like cults do, when your paradigm is challenged.Once students have a clear understanding of how Christianity, the Bible and various Christian theologies in particular, shaped Western and American history, then it is important to understand how religions in other cultures have shaped those cultures.

It has to do with the culture and ideas that formed this nation, and shaped it. What the Indians believed has not played as large a role, but it is certainly worthwhile to learn what they believed and do believe for any Indian traditionalists.

Yawn. Get over it. The simple fact is Christianity played an extremely crucial role in Western history and the formation of the colonies and this nation, and in the 1800s.As far as Catholicism, we should teach what that theology is.The idea that Indian theological beliefs played a significant role in the development of the USA is wrong, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored entirely. It's just you teach US history first, and others second.For example, it is more important to understand the US government and Constitution, for American kids than to understand Japan's. It's not that Japan's history and religion should be ignored, but our own history should be taught first.As far as current history, I agree there is less need to talk about current events, but at the same time, it's often good to discuss current events and views.

jar, you get called out on this every time, but you keep stating it. Is it some sort of self-hatred since you claim to be a Christian?The fact of the matter is more people have been killed in the name of atheism (communism) than anything else? The numbers are staggering, 60-110 million in the Soviet Union alone. Solzienitzen claimed the higher end, I beleive, and estimates are fairly wide as records have been lost, but it's staggering. Stalin make the Inquisition pale in comparison.Mao in China, the communists in Cambodia, Vietnam, etc,....killed far more than religiously motivated wars, unless you want to admit their anti-religion of secularism was a religion all of it's own.But even throughout history, I think the claims of Christianity being one of the primary causes of genocide, etc,...is demonstrably false, even for false Christianity.For example, in American history among non-Indians, the worst war was the Civil war which had next to nothing to do with Christianity. And often when the Indians were killed, Christian missionaries were the only ones standing up for them, trying to see they would be protected. I think one can hardly blame the greed that produced the Indian slaughters then on Christianity.Let's take some of the worse killings, the Crusades. They hardly compare to Ghengis Khan or some other maruading conquerers in scope.The Catholic genocide against non-Catholic "heretics" was indeed brutal, but still pales in comparison to Rwanda for example.So basically, your statement is pure BS.This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 01:19 AM

So you would argue Wahhabism is very tolerant, but Jerry Falwell is in the same vein as Stalin or something, eh?The fact Wahhabism is so oppressive as to force women not to even show their faith in public, drive a car, etc,....or that people can be beheaded for merely carrying a Bible, as a tolerant religion.Keep in mind, Saudi Arabia is at the root and heart of Islam, and arguably practices Islam in a manner most free from Christian or other religious influences.

Also, the single most strongest force in destroying cultures around the world is secularism combined with globalism, commercialism and materialism. Most cultures are rooted in their religion, and be denigrating all religion, as secularism does, and marginalizing it, the effect especially combined with consumerism and secular education is flat out causing a rapid collapse of ancient cultures.

Is Wahhabism not a form of Islam. You claim Christianity is the most violent and destructive force on the planet, and that Islam is tolerant.How is Christianity more violent and destructive than Wahabbism?This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 02:06 AM

That still doesn't come close to other slaughers and genocide.I am against the perversion of Catholicism with it's persecution, as much as anyone, but it's not the "most violent" force in the world and never has been.It is truly bad because it perverts the name of Christ, but it's not the most violent force or worst genocide, etc,...not by a long shot.

Historically, the communist slaughters were the worse, followed by invaders of various stripes. The fact some Judeo-Christian invaders slaughtered some towns and people does not make it worse than, say, the Rwandan massacre.communism
ethnic genocide
plain old plunder and greed from invadersThose are how I would rank them.