Bible/Religious Education in America

What is important, I think, is to emphasize the point that even if everyone never agrees on the need to agree, we will either be collectively all agreeable or we won't. One or the other.(Think outside the box. "One or the other". Key concept.)Edited by Phat, : fixed a few things to look a little betterEdited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

quote:

---

—noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

---

Science Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

Mathematics is the science and study of quantity, structure, space, and change.

---

Mathematics - WikipediaI think it is in the sense of *everyone* using it that way. Really? Well gosh, why don't you call up the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants? Apparently you have some news for them! Right, but you don't teach that the Boer war was caused by aliens attacking a local brewery. You don't teach that because it is objectively not true, despite what the town drunk claims. With religious education they are equally valid topics of study. Well too bad, you are objectively wrong.Now do me, but tell me that being a Jew is wrong. So you are going to have a state-run institution tell the group down the road who follows "Jesus of Nazareth" and believes "Christ" is simply an honorary title that they are not really Christian? Do you potentially see a problem with such a thing? How about telling us why you, or anyone else for that matter, deserves to set up the official guidelines of what makes Jews Jewish? Well, lets lay it out perfectly clearly. If you are a history teacher in public school and you teach incorrect history, you will be fired. Sure, you can go home and tell your kids whatever you like, but public education has taken an official stance on some *factual* issues of history. And some countries make their women cover every inch of their skin and treat them as little more than property. Some countries will stone you to death for speaking ill of an entity nobody can prove actually exists. The fact that some countries do something is hardly a compelling argument that it is a good idea.

I think it is quite obvious that we are not collectively all agreeable.

The question then becomes: Does it matter if we don't all agree?I would suggest that it can, if any one group of us or individuals within groups are affected beyond their control.

Oh, I would agree. For instance, telling someone what their beliefs are or are not.

I think most people use science to refer to an empirical methodology and mathematics as being focussed on logical studies. I am not saying one cannot say that maths is a science, I'm just saying that I was not using the word in that fashion. You forgot the Muslims and the Ethiopians - if only the fact that different groups had different canons were taught at school Pedantry aside as to what should be included as canon, there is pretty much no dispute over the contents of Exodus or the book of Acts. I'm not suggesting we teach that Catholic teaching is that aliens started the Boer war, since that is objectively false. I'm suggesting we teach children important facts about the religions of the world. And since we can't teach it all (like with history) certain decisions have to be made.Do we teach what Dave from Dagenham had for breakfast on 3 July 1494?No, we should teach actual facts about religions - and only ones which are judged as important or interesting enough to warrant study. Great, so let's not teach kids facts that are objectively wrong.So, let's teach them that being a Jew is an ethnic as well as a religious label and that in this class we are talking about the religious side of things. We'll teach them about what the Talmud is and what that means, the Pentatuech, the Old Testament (though mentioning that this is not a Jewish label), maybe talk about Abraham and other prophets, Genesis and the origins of various religious festivals. You know, objective facts about Judaism. No, I didn't say that in order to qualify as a Christian one has to think that Yeshua's real name is Christ (since that would be objectively false, if anything children should be taught that Christ is a title - since that is objectively true). My thought got cut off and I was trying to say more but forgot about it. I'm not proposing we come up with any 'qualifications' for any religious view. However, children should be made aware of what someone generally means when they say "Hi I'm a Christian" or "Hi I am Muslim". They should also be made aware that there are many groups that identify as Christians and Muslims, that there are differences (with some key ones such as Catholic vs Protestant, Shia vs Sunni etc), but some general indicators. There is some leeway, here, actually. Precisely because of the contentious nature of history. Nevertheless, there is a curriculum. And as long as the factual issues of religion are addressed I still don't see a problem.Unless there is a reason that a school shouldn't commit themselves to commenting on whether or not the Qur'An is the holy book of Islam and that Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel dictated its words to Mohammed? No - I was inviting you to look to those countries to see if you can find a consequence of this kind of study that is negative. They exist and some systems even avoid all out civil war.Exam questions might be about religious symbols and devices or the structure of a mosque or the method of prayer in a mandir or a typical service in a gurdwara.You may be asked about views on abortion or war of various religions. Correct answers include pointing out that there are differences within the religions. In some places, discussions of secular views are even had.

Don't be taken in by the assortment of media stories about faith/eduction in America. While there is a sizable lobby pushing for creation to be taught alongside evolution, there are only a handful of school districts actually pushing for it.There are tens of thousands of school districts and I would estimate, off-hand, that only .5% actually have anything in their curriculum that would be different from what might be read in British textbooks.That said, it does exist in small locales. It usually goes to court and to date, I think the creationists have all lost those cases.To answer your other question, no, I don't think there is any need to combine science with religion as they are completely separate studies. It makes about as much sense as combining literature with mathematics. They're two completely different studies, and one has nothing to do with the other.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

It has in the sense that some people have stretched its meanings a bit. All the Establishment Clause to this amendment means is that the government shall not infringe upon religion, and religion shall have no preference to government, meaning, the government shall not side with any religion. It is supposed to remain neutral. The instructors are supposed to have a kind of clinical detachment and simply teach the facts, not inject bias.So in a public school, which is funded by federal, state, or local government money, it is illegal to be teaching religion outside of a religious studies course. The course itself has to remain neutral and simply teach the tenets of various religions. They cannot show preferential treatment to any of them. It has Seperation of Church and State, but as I said above some people or groups confuse the issue to mean more than what it does. In essence, certain theist or anti-theist groups intentionally distort it to suit their own agendas. Ha! No, it doesn't, and much to my chargin, as I am American. America has some very good universities but the public school system on the elemantary, middle, and high school level in many areas are abysmal. The United States fares very low on the education totem comparitively for a number of reasons, but most notably due to indifference and laziness. Nations who have far less funding often do better than their American counterparts, which proves that funding alone can't make students do better. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Ever seen anyone use the scientific method in Mathematics ?I totally understand Modulus on this. Although mathematics is referred to as science, it is somehow very different from the rest of science and I would preferably never refer to it as science.For example, you can never prove anything in science, but Mathematics is all about makings proofs.

Bam! Now you have an official religious czar, who decides what religions get to be taught in school and which ones are not officially recognized. I don't think that is a good idea at all. So you would be OK with teaching people that being Jewish involves wearing a hot pink hat with a propeller and flashing LEDs, and chanting Norse folk songs backwards?Here is the tricky bit, if you are unwilling to teach that because it is incorrect, then you just told some person that their religion is "wrong". In this case it may just be one guy, but it means that somewhere there is a little town that has beliefs your religion czar does not deem worthy of being an official religion. Perhaps somewhere in Africa there is an entire country. Where can one draw the line, if at all? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. In this case you are saying that people who do not believe that the angel Gabriel dictated its words to Mohammed are not Muslim, and while a contrary example may be quite rare there probably exists one. I think that setting up a government agency to define what is and what is not part of a religion is an extremely bad idea. Wonderful, those exam questions would be quite the minefield. Your test would arbitrarily decide what symbols count as religious symbols, inevitably telling some poor kid that his family is "doing it wrong". Some mosque isn't going to qualify as being built "up to code" for being a mosque and I doubt the resident worshipers will be thrilled. Are you really willing to tell some guy who prays in a mandir that his method is objectively wrong, or that a typical service isn't typical enough?

Given that all the math I know was invented long before my birth, I have not actually personally witnessed its development. However, yes it did involve using the scientific method. Specifically that whole bit about matching theories to data, and refining said theories until a useful model is created to predict future phenomena. Well, feel privileged in a dramatic minority.

A "religion czar?" Why would it have to be so serious? There is already a body of curriculum writers, no need to create something as extreme as an religion czar. What are you talking about? If it's not in the religion, then why would it be discussed?What you're saying could go for anything in school curriculum, including science. Do we need a science czar because of it? There is nothing "arbitrary" about it, this is all common knowledge. Maybe we need a czar because % in some obscure place means &.What then is your solution to the false dilemma you invented?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Who decides if it is in the religion or not? At what point, if any, are you willing to tell someone that their religious beliefs are incorrect? No, not all scientific ideas are required to be treated equally. There is an objective truth for science, but not so for religion. Are you truly so prejudiced that you think your "common knowledge" is an appropriate scale by which to measure the personal beliefs of billions? You were raised to understand that certain religions have specific qualities, and there may well be many people who agree, but that does *NOT* mean you have the right to define those religions. I am going to ignore the spirit of your rude and snarky comment, and provide an enriching response. I think that people should do their own religious investigation as they see fit, and hopefully come to the understanding that religious beliefs are a personal and highly variable subject. If they choose to stereotype religious groups (as is inevitable) then they do so at their own peril.

Theology classes teach the facts about mainstream religion. How does that conflict with anything? What relevance does it have to being able to teach about the tenets of various religions? Would we also need a Philosophy Czar because philosophy is subjective?My point is that you're really being silly about this and needlessly dragging this out. Different denominations have varying perspectives on certain issues. That doesn't mean that there is not a common theme that runs through them all. All that one would have to do for a theology class is to simply go over mainstream beliefs and how they often splinter off. No one has to be right or wrong, just present the FACTS.That would be like not teaching evolution because Lamarcke and Darwin differed on opinions, rather than just accepting that they came to different conclusions. How is that different from religion?Seriously, why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? So you don't want anyone teaching any religion at all? You expect people to intrinsically know what the Qu'ran or the bible is without informing them what it is?Why? What does it matter to you?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Surely teaching about the main religions in school would enable students to make up their own minds and also allow them to incorporate your pink hat, fluffy dice etc religion if and when it is met in the wider world. Teaching about larger faiths basic doctrines wouldn't necessarily create a situation where the authenticity of any belief system is dictated by the state.In fact i would say that it allows the student a greater ability to understand and except smaller denominations and religious beliefs instead of meeting these religions blind.Edited by andyr86, : Spelling.