Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula

Then the teacher should say that all the evidence shows that the Bible is factually wrong.

---

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

I think I agree with you on this. The problem I see is that the teacher can find himself/herself really treading a line between constitutional and unconstitutional. One could say essentially the same thing two different ways, with the two ways being on opposite sides of the line.And what if a student comment crosses over into unconstitutional territory?I like your ideal of "sacred studies", although (credit to another member) perhaps the "comparative religion studies" would be a better title and core theme. But I don't see any way it could be kept constitutional.Moose

Students can make unconstitutional comments. Happens often.As long as the teacher is not promoting a religion I don't see where there could be a Constitutional issue.

---

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

You know, it would be nice if you would flesh out your response more, without me having to prompt you every inch of the way. And when it happens in the context of a class discussion, the teacher needs to respond to it. Is the teacher to say "That comment would be unconstitutional if I was the one to say it, and feel that I shouldn't comment in return".For someone proposing that "Study of Religion" be brought into the public schools, it sure is hard to get any details out of you on how it is to be executed. You say it can be done constitutionally, but I see much potential for unconstitutional glitches. All it takes is one of those glitches, you got a lawsuit from either the pro or anti-religion side, and the whole thing comes crashing down.Moose

I simply don't see that and I believe that history bears my position out.Certainly there will be lawsuits, likely lots of them. But as long as the teacher does not comment on whether he agrees with some particular religious position, I don't see how a challenge could succeed.I mentioned way back in message 41:

quote:

---

As in so many things, those issues would best be addressed by curiculun and testing.

​

The curiculum might include:

​

* basic religions, the Judeao family, the Eastern Family, Indus Valley religions.
* regional religions (in the US, American Indian beliefs as an example).
* Philosophy (Greece to Kant)
* the place Religion played in developing different cultures (this would vary based on geographic areas. For example, I'd imagine that in Indoneasia the arrival of Islam would be of greater significance than in the US)

​

Testing could also be objective. It would not be so much on what you believe as "What did Mencius say about ..."?

---

and in message 69:

quote:

---

If this is a good idea how could it be implemented?

​

Just to make clear what I'm suggestiong, I'll try to do a short summary.

​

• a multi-year, multi-semester course.
• beginning about midway through Primary education and continuing until graduation.
• integrated with other disciplines, for example
  
  • in history religious components of different cultures would be included.
  • in mathematics, the contributions of the Greek and Islamic world would be included.
  • in current events the influence and effects of religious viewpoints would be included.
    
• it would cover many different religions.
• philosophy, including naturalistic ones would be covered.
• testing would be done based on objective as opposed to subjective criteria.
  
  
  questions would not be on what you believe but rather
  ​
  • "What did Mencius say about ..."
  • what is the "Eight fold Path?
  • who drove the Jews out of Spain?
  • who offered those Jews sanctuary and provided transportation for them?
    
  
  

---

and in message 149:

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.

---

I'm not sure how mucvh more detail you want from me?

---

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

As soon as you even mentioned any of the beliefs of, say, Islam or Shintoism in any but a condemnatory way, the good bibliatrous parents of Texas would throw wall-eyed fits. "Comparative religion" here in Snyder implies comparing Free-will and Southern Baptists.I'd love to see a real comparative relgions course in our high schools The chances of finding teachers that would 1) teach it in an unbiased way and 2) avoid having their houses firebombed would be exceedingly slim, though.Jar, do I remember correctly that you went to an Episcopal school?

Yup, whiskeypalian.And yes, "As soon as you even mentioned any of the beliefs of, say, Islam or Shintoism in any but a condemnatory way, the good bibliatrous parents of Texas would throw wall-eyed fits. "That is why it is important to stick to facts and ask questions like those outlined above. It would take some training and certification of the teachers but that is possible. The UK does it.There will certainly be challenges but it should be able to write a curriculum that would pass the Constitutional test.

---

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

I think it will be very difficult for a teacher, regardless of his/her best "keep it constitutional" intents, to not somewhere along the line say he/she agrees or disagrees with some religious position. Somewhere along the line, and I don't think it will be a long line, one of the challenges will succeed.Richard Dawkins, as I understand it, is in favor of education about religion. He believes students should be given the honest factual information from which they can develop their positions. Of course, Dawkins is one who believes such a information presentation will have much of religion coming off looking bad. For that reason, many of the religion promoters would be against it.We need a couple of trial versions - One up here in Minnesota and one down in Texas. Then we see what happens.Moose

Why? If they are trained and the curriculum is well designed, why can't the teacher keep personal opinion out of teh classroom?

---

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

That would be the diplomatic way to say it, for the teacher not to take sides.Now say we are in a science class, one covering geology, and the teacher has just taught that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. A student replies "But the Bible says that the Earth is about 5000 years old".The teacher could make the same diplomatic response, "All the evidence shows that the Bible is factually wrong." Or he could say "the Bible is wrong". Or he could say "that book is wrong".As I see it, saying "the Bible is wrong" in the religion class would be taking a religious position and would be unconstitutional, but the exact same statement in a science class would be fine and constitutional. In the science class, why should the Bible get special deference relative to some other non-religion connected book? Wrong is wrong.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

And diplomacy is diplomacy.And teachers should be taught how to handle such questions.While the diplomatic answer should work in all classes, the the Sacred Studies or CompR courses, an even better example would be to use that as a starting point to look at some of the other religions. For example, the teacher could ask the questioning student to find out how old the Vedas say the earth is.

---

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