»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Religion in Schools
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Religion in Schools |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yep, yep, yep, put it in there. Put the ten commandments on the wall. It might help teach critical thinking. Of course, this'll just piss off Christians more for teachers would have to teach it as a subject, not as a dogma. |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think religion is a good idea in school as long as the studies are given to a good taste of all religions , not just Christianity. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-02-2002 10:14 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
While I believe strongly in the separation between church and state, I guess I'd have to say I believe even more strongly in the separation between "subject" and dogma. Trouble is, I've seen very little indication that's even possible. Sat in on a ninth grade civics class lately? English or Literature? I can't think of a single subject taught in K-12 that isn't peppered liberally with its share of dogma. I've always maintained that a college education is an absolute necessity, even if all a person ever wants to do is dig ditches the rest of their life. Sadly, it may be the only chance a person will ever get to actually think for themselves. It will almost certainly be the first time. The point, Brad, is that if Christianity were taught in the public school system, it would be no different. What you really mean to say is that many would be upset because it was someone else's dogma being taught as the "subject." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah. My point is it won't satisfy anybody. I could be wrong of course, let's find out. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're right, nobody would be satisfied. I don't think religion should be taught in public school, as a subject or as dogma (they can't really be separated, I agree). Religion can be studied at home and at a person's own preferred place of worship, or if a parent can afford or wishes, they can send their children to the private school of their choice. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Wouldn't it be beneficial for young people to discuss and ask religious questions freely in a public setting, instead of in a seclusion or cloister as if religion is meant to be kept private and secret? I feel like people learn better in being exposed to each others developing and diverse opinions where they are able debate just as they may be disposed to in respectful and critical ways. If the schoolboards instituted a set outline that could be sanctioned, and then conveyed by teachers of good reputation who would follow the rules well and follow through with studies that introduce students to some of the most important aspects of the major religions, I think it could work very well in a public high schools. I also think they should add a Philosophy course! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But isn't it wrong to deny kids exposure to the Western tradition? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you mean putting religion away until Sunday? I think they would still attend church with family for their own faith, but would have a more critical attention, and might even raise a few objections of their own, while their parents will be sleeping with their eyes open.  [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2002 12:29 AM).] |
||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Any parents in here. It is indeed your responsibility to raise your own child based on principles. If that's Christian principles or not it is your child. Not the states and not the teachers. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Many parents, perhaps most in this day of age, simply do not have the time or are not even religiously inclined. And do you blame them with the way the work force is today? It is difficult with all the influences today to teach a child the most basic morals and respects, let alone teach the discourses of a religion thats been around for ages. Even moreso when people have less time and deserve to spend that in more enjoyable and personally worthwhile activitiies. I just think what the school could offer would still be better than nothing or too little. It would be a basis for an understanding. Essorant [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2002 01:20 AM).] |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
"But isn't it wrong to deny kids exposure to the Western tradition?" Brad, you sound like Bloom and just as provocative!!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey, I read that book. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You bet I do! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I agree with Essorant. We did a Bible unit in my senior year, and I found it fairly objective and very informative. I think that discussion of religion is very healthy in public school settings, as long as the Christian majority isn't allowed to berate people who hold different beliefs, and vice-versa. Debate and abuse are two different things, but I think open discussion and debate can help elimiate the latter, as students will be introduced to different beliefs at a younger age. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, How do you blame people who after work have only perhaps 6 hours left for spending time with their children whom have been at school themselves most of the day, for wishing to spend that to time for letting their children be children, yes I do mean pleaseing, letting them do what they want for the most part, some people will call it "spoiling" enjoying the time utmost. Take them out for dinner, to a movie, to sports event etc. I'm not saying no teaching should go on, but who wants to conduct lessons and devote this time to studying or counselling when life is short and school and work already take up so much time??? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2002 11:50 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Essorant, spending time with the children isn't what your earlier post suggested to me. Taking the kids to a meal or movie or sporting event IS teaching them your values. The differences between right and wrong are never taught by conducting "lessons," but only through example. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Putting "religion" in schools will not make up for a lack of parenting. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I don't see the harm in it. But it should not supplant the responsibility of parents to be the child's primary source for religious instruction. I, personally, think it is impossible to avoid religion when examining the history of Western culture. Or even the Colonial justification for the American Revolution. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (12-03-2002 02:00 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I hope that those kind of parents are still the many and what most are. But there is a group of working peoples now a days who think that daycares and the institutions should do all the rearing and teaching. These people are viciously career oriented and hedonistic, they have intercourse and children but avoide the responsibilities due to these with having "no time" as an excuse as if to justify it. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2002 04:40 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I find it interesting that no one really understood what I meant (Okay, it's no one's fault but my own, but Jim seems to get it.) Parenting, to me, was not the question, history is. Right or wrong, good or bad, Christianity is a part of us (atheists included). Understanding where we come from is important. It helps us deal with other people who didn't come from there. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"The differences between right and wrong are never taught by conducting 'lessons', but only through example. " Ron, I agree with you here... except for the word "only". I believe that "lessons" are important, but also that living those lessons is most important of all. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Nicely said. Have you ever read "Le Morte de'Arthur" Knights are always saying "by the faith of my own body" I've always liked that saying because it seems to say that faith must come out through actions, it should be in your behavior as well as your heart. If you have a faith you should not just hold it but be it--live it, indeed. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2002 08:28 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
As a part of history, perhaps a cursory overview of the world's various religions, and how they each have impacted history would be valuable, if it could be done in such a way as not to endorse one over another in the classroom setting. But then, of course, the question comes to mind, who decides which version of history? Each country, culture and religion seems to have their own version. How does one actually arrive at a completely objective historical interpretation? Is that even possible? As an aside, History is not even taught anymore in Philadelphia in the public schools. It was replaced about 25 years ago with Social Studies. I remember taking my girls, when they were in grade school, to a large suburban mall nearby where a huge relief of Washington Crossing the Delaware was on display. They had no idea who he was or why he was in the boat crossing the Delaware River. I had mistakenly assumed that they were learning history in Social Studies. As they never had books to bring home (supposedly because the Philadelphia School District couldn't afford to buy books for each child and they just shared what books they did have in class), I really had no way of knowing what they were being taught or not being taught). So, whatever history they do know, I taught them. To this day the subject of history is still not being taught in Philadelphia public schools. I wonder if this is the rule or the exception across the United States. Another thought comes to mind, how does one monitor the lessons to insure that particular teachers are not setting forth their own particular beliefs as dogma? What types of safe-guards would be set in place to insure that one religion is not proffered above another in a public school classroom setting? How would this impact the separation of Church and State issue? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Another thought comes to mind, how does one monitor the lessons to insure that particular teachers are not setting forth their own particular beliefs as dogma?" The only answer to this would be to employ security guards to watch over the teachings in each classroom. If they start to get lopsided, these guards will contact the supreme authorities and have which ever teacher is involved banished from the premises and sentenced to due punishment by the law and eternal shame in the public eye. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-03-2002 11:58 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Just kidding |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You therefore privilege Christianity because of it's larger impact on American society. I'm not criticizing this, that's what I want. quote: That's what historians do. quote: It's neither possible nor desirable. An objective history would be a chronology with no regard to significance. We want bias in our histories. quote: As a further aside, an English chap here related a story while he was in San Francisco: British guy: Yeah, we're thinking of driving up the coast, up to British Columbia. American guy: Uh huh, British guy: You know, in Canada. American guy: Where's Canada? quote: Let the teacher show his or her bias. They are going to anyway. To think otherwise is to imagine an objective history. quote: Instead of implementing this in the schools, why don't the schools try to show why we talk about this all the time. Historicise it. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think there must be a firm and approved outline by the public and board instituted to ensure a model for a basis to build upon where a general "rule" to govern the teachers attitude "conduct" will also have to stand. If there is bias impressing notions into the students, this vacates the intent of religious studies. For ultimatly such a class, I believe, should be for a clean understanding, where they may observe life religions with as much an open mind as possible, and the sucess of this will be determined a lot in the teachers demonstrations and attitude. Teachers well-disposed and established in religion and teaching to the substance, should be the only ones trusted to convey religious studies. We can only judge people from opinion and hope they will uphold a good one. If they are teachers of good established respect, than there is no reason a system shouldn't trust them as any other teacher whom we put faith in to help guide our youth. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-04-2002 03:00 AM).] |
||
|
furlong Member
since 2001-04-08
Posts 129 |
Why did I assume you had read it! And his latest: "Genius"? Oh, and of course I agree that an awareness (perhaps even an appreciation) of Western tradition/canon is desirable mostly for the reasons you give. What I object to is a teaching approach which (at an early stage) elevates it to a status where it stifles broader thought. As a matter of fact I think Bloom comes close to doing that. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Regarding the Constitutional Establishment Clause issues, the following summarizes the tests the US Supreme Court has established to determine whether or not the practices of a governmental body are consistent with the US Constitution: The Lemon Test Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if: The Coercion Test The Endorsement Test I think the third test would be most difficult to reconcile with your opinion (which I agree with, by the way). But then again, I think Allegheny is not necessarily good law because it doesn't seem to consider the disproportionate impact Christianity has had on Western civilization over other world religions. Just thought you might be interested. Jim |
||
|
GG Member Elite
since 2002-12-03
Posts 3532Lost in thought |
Christianity is; in its true and pure form: a personal, saving relationship with Christ Jesus. I despise religeon for it hinders people from a relationship. I myself am a ninth grade student, in an English class I am in I recently read the poem by Joyce something or the other, that ends "poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree." ..well that struck huge debate and I believe it was handled well. the students were able to discuss religeous and spiritual issues, but the teacher was not allowed to teach his views. A teacher teaching Christianity would be presenting THEIR VEIW of it.. thats why Christians leave churches sometimes because they don't agree with a pastor, people view things differently! It would be nonsensical. Thats my bit Always, God's Girl - And so it was that time stood still - [This message has been edited by GG (12-08-2002 08:01 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks for the litmus lesson Jim... it should be handy here. As subject the TC belongs in history and lit -- probably even sociology and perhaps psychology. The chap factor for me involving the dogma side is the (usually do-gooder conservative hypocrites who hang out with hookers in hotel rooms) proponents are really saying 'other' kids need this -- not their own -- none of them would say their own kids aren't getting an unhealthy dose of dogma at home and at church on sunday.... Agree with Ron -- college will be (particularly those kids) the first chance and maybe only to think for themselves (provided they don't say what they think to the extremely liberally dominated university system) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
We spend so much time worrying about the establisment issue that high school becomes as useless as, well, high school students think it is. Why wait for college? I know in high school, I kept thinking, yeah, but what's really going on in this field. Now. |
||
|
Jaime
Registered
MemberPosts 250 |
To me, all of the religions are linked in some form or another. I am spiritual however I do not follow any organized religions... I do think it's important to study them though since they are such a huge factor in our culture. We had a World Religions class, which I wanted to take (I'm a senior in high school), but there weren't enough students signed up. I think that's the best way to go about it. In a historical sense, which brings it back to it's standing point in our culture today. I think that encourages students to make their own opinion about religion. Life is where you look for it. [This message has been edited by Jaime (12-11-2002 08:25 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I would not like to see religion seperated in a history class though. If there is just going to be a brief chapter called "Religion" that puts points about religions in short highlights and jot notes that is really not worth it--students deserve an understanding, not a group of things that would only be a vagueness. Perhaps if they had a philosophy course as well, that asked for a prerequisite of taking religion at the same time people would enroll in relgious studies more because I think a philosophy course would work very well in high schools. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-12-2002 01:54 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
