Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula

But that might lead to understanding and tolerance!

---

Why do men have nipples?

Jar,In several rural areas in Virginia (the Town of Staunton was recently in the news) elementary school students are taken out of school and marched across town to local churches (pick your protestant flavor) and given a weekly religious education class. It is known as WRE (Weekly Religious Education) but is exclusively christian, and amazingly has been determined to be completely legal because they don't actually teach the religion in the school. Kids are able to opt out of the class, but if they do, they end up just sitting around in an empty classroom doing nothing while all the other students get a bus trip across town. And its apparantly been going on for quite some time now.Here's a link about Staunton, VA WRE.

---

Why do men have nipples?

Ah, Staunton. Brings back fond memories of road trips to the Garden of Eden.
_{Hollings, Randolph-Macon, Sweet Briar, Mary Baldwin}Yeah, there are several efforts like that around the country and I deplore their orientation. Now if they took the Christians once a week to a Synagogue and Mosque I think it would be worthwhile but as currently practiced in most cases I see it as counter productive.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

However, that would also mean that the Jews would go to Mosques and Churches, and the Muslims to Churches and Synagogues on these days. Right?

Possibly, it would.the best solution would be if the Jews, Buddhists, Muslims went to Christian Churches while the Christians went to Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist locations.This message has been edited by jar, 05-20-2005 12:32 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Believe me, it isn't as though the Christians aren't the only ones who don't understand other's religions. I admit, they should, and could do better than they are, but everyone needs to understand everyone else's beliefs, and they need to learn it from a unbiases source. True, no one is unbiased, but it is possible to write an unbiases paper, no matter how biased you are.Then again, you talk of how children who opt not to sit in a classroom doing nothing? I sat in the Hall and do nothing during SexEd, FLASH, HIV/AIDS Education, and STDs Prevention when I was in public school.This message has been edited by Rosie Cotton, 05-20-2005 03:14 PM

I believe the idea of an unbiased religion education class is a great idea since religion is a big part of culture.The problem is the 'unbiased' part...

Hi, folks, interesting discussion.
We had a Religious Education class once a week in high school when I was growing up in Scotland, I think from our first to fourth years. Alas, the teacher we usually had could not control the class so we didn't learn very much (I suspect because most of us did not want to be there at the time!!). I don't envy any teacher who has to teach a mandatory class on anything!! I think if the class had been called "Origins" or something I might have had more interest but the term 'religious' would always turn me off.
I was an atheist back then, so for me, my 'religion' class was actually Biology class. I was a firm believer in evolution back then and Biology was my best subject in high school, I think, in part, because I thought it gave me a firm basis to put my atheism on at the time.
I recall when the biology teacher brought it up the first time, one of the students who was a Christian (and who would often get the highest marks in the class) would object and pooh pooh the idea that man came from apes etc., to which the teacher would reply to the effect..."sorry it does not conform to your beliefs but this topic is mandated as part of the course materials so I must teach it."
Anyway, that's my two cents.

I've just read through the first 90 messages of this topic and I see no examples of what could and could not be taught.I would like to focus on Christianity, for that is the main area of contention. I am not saying the other religions should be excluded.So, the Bible. What specific content can and should be pulled out of the Bible and taught?Moose

LOLTaught as literature?All of it.Taught as an example of what people believe?All of it.Taught as fact or history?None of it.AbE:Back in msg #38 of the thread I outlined the course I experienced.

quote:

---

When I was a little tyke my parents shipped me off to a Christian Boy's boarding school. I guess that's where most of the exposure began. As kids moved into Upper School (the equivalent of 6th. Grade in the US Public School System) they began exploring religion through Sacred Studies. It was called Sacred Studies to emphasize that it was NOT just Christian Dogma and Indoctrination.

​

Sacred Studies were yet another subject on its own, but was also woven into almost every other subject as well. When we studied Ancient History we read the Book of the Dead, examined the place of worship in Pheonician and Minoian civilizations, studied the Amarna Tablets and early Eastern writings. In math, when we studied Algebra we studied the part that the Muslim world played in creating our currently used arithmetic terminology. In science we touched on the observations and contributions from other religions, and the work of Mendel.

​

The religious studies program consisted of Chapel twice a week in the morning, Sunday bus to Old St. Paul's downtown, related studies in classes and Sacred Studies.

​

Sacred Studies itself began by examining Christianity and in particular, the Anglican Church. We read most of the early works, Luther, Wesley, the History of the CoE, studied the papacy down through the ages with lots of emphasis on Pope Gregory. Then, in succeeding years it expanded into philosophy, examining major religions, reading most of the Eastern teachers and lots of discussions.

​

It continued in informal discussions in the evenings (when you're stuck 24/7 on the top of a hill out in the country with little else to do, kids love discussing philosophy) at the various Masters houses. I was luck enough to have one Master who worked each summer on digs in the Middle East, so we also got an appreciation of what's involved.

​

In all, it was either the exact opposite of indoctrination or the most sophisticated example of such practice. You were NEVER told what to believe. Instead, every single belief you held was challenged constantly. And once you changed to a different POV, that was challenged. LOL

---

Edited by jar, : add possible example curriculum

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I presume that the conflicts between some of the Biblical beliefs and the worldly facts and history would be topics of discussion.Would the teacher be free to say "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are in conflict with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old"?MooseAdded by edit, in response to your added by edit:Your school was free of constitutional considerations. What parts of their material would be out of bounds for a public school?Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

I don't think any of the material would have been a problem Constitutionally. I don't ever remember being told what I should believe, in fact a major part was challenging strongly held beliefs. For example we had to build a case for atheism.And certainly the teacher would not just be free to say that the evidence shows the earth to be over 6000 years old, I'd expect such material to be a fundamental part of even a minimalist education.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You are correct that the bible could be taught as literature, an example of what people believe and, possibly, history. However, if a school used only the bible for that course, there is at least a possibility that such a practice would run afoul of the First Amendment. I would not advise any school district to attempt to do that unless they can give a compelling reason for not including materials from other religions. And even then, I would advise them that they would likely face a lawsuit.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Me too, but it was Moose that wanted to ignore all the other religions I said should be included.

quote:

---

There is lots covered in that thread, but of course Christianity would only be one of the religions covered.

​

It's hardly worth a whole new thread IMHO, particularly since there are many many examples already in practice, for example the studies in the UK.

​

The minimal religions covered would the the Judaic family (stressing the similarities), the Indus Valley religions, the historic pantheon (Greek, Roman, Norse), Egyptian, and then the Philosophic religions, the writings of Mencius, Confucius, Taoism, Buddhism.

​

Typical questions would be things like what did (pick a religion) say about (pick a subject).

​

It would cover both the good and bad effects of religion over time.

---

From a reply to Moose in the other thread.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I am not trying to exclude other religions - I just wanted a specific example from some religion, and I chose that one to be Christianity.Now, you have indicated that the phrase "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are in conflict with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" is good and proper material for the class.I presume the phrase "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are wrong" would cross the line into unconstitutionality.I also presume that "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are in conflict with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The Biblical story of the Earth's age is wrong" would also be unconstitutional.It would be fine to imply that certain Biblical beliefs are wrong, but the teacher could not explicitly say such. So, what if a student asks the teacher "Does the scientific consensus say the Bible is wrong"?Moose