THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Himu on October 11, 2009, 12:20:53 PM
-
[youtube=560,345]Mk9cXJ1MljI[/youtube]
The editing for the 2007 clip is really bad. You can find that entire interview here, and O'reilly is a git the entire time.
[youtube=560,345]3tRsnm45OVY[/youtube]
Once again, O'Reilly acts like a git, but this begs the question: does ID really need to be taught in schools? Many of the ideas in ID are questionable, as are the people who support it.
What do you think EB?
Was evolution taught in your middle schools and high schools?
-
That was fucking horrible. I could barely make it to the end.
-
I don't give a shit, that shouldn't be the topic here. O'Reilly destroyed Dawkins with his logical religious arguments.. Dawkins was weak and full of shit except him saying that why Jesus Christ would be the real thing or something to that extent. Because he's not. Islam is the only religion that makes sense to me so Jesus Christ being the son of God is not true.
Atheism is ignorant and soulless.
-
but this begs the question: does ID really need to be taught in schools?
Yes. In the same class where Greek and Norse Mythology is taught.
-
but this begs the question: does ID really need to be taught in schools?
Yes. In the same class where Greek and Norse Mythology is taught.
Why ruin mythology class?
-
Norse and Greek mythology was some of the best shit in school. I was ecstatic to read Beowulf; blood and guts and :rock
-
I don't give a shit, that shouldn't be the topic here. O'Reilly destroyed Dawkins with his logical religious arguments.. Dawkins was weak and full of shit except him saying that why Jesus Christ would be the real thing or something to that extent. Because he's not. Islam is the only religion that makes sense to me so Jesus Christ being the son of God is not true.
Atheism is ignorant and soulless.
(http://somewhatmanlynerd.com/gifs/airball.gif)
-
(http://i35.tinypic.com/20k6u5h.gif)
-
To be fair, O'Reilly did apologize for shouting, which was different.
Intelligent design has no place in SCIENCE class - it belongs in philosophy.
-
To be fair, O'Reilly did apologize for shouting, which was different.
Intelligent design has no place in SCIENCE class - it belongs in philosophy.
Why ruin philosophy classes?
-
I dont see how this is even an issue, something thats not science shouldnt be in science class.
Maybe science doesn't have all the answers; did you ever think about that? Maybe the slutty devil planted those dinosaur bones?
-
I dont see how this is even an issue, something thats not science shouldnt be in science class.
It's the same culture war bullshit that certain people who align themselves with religion have been pushing ever since evolution came along.
It's a paranoid fear that "God" is being removed from the culture or attacked so the defense response is to try to fight back and insert him where he doesn't belong.
-
Even we know that.
Why ruin philosophy classes?
Yup, they should have separate classes for religion. 5 actually. 10 hours per week.
Religion isn't taught in American public schools k-12 but I really think it should be in the later high school years along with economics.
-
I don't know what public school you went to, but I learned about religious cultures in middle and high school.
-
Ask Mandark - we both went to the same middle school, and I definitely recall learning about religions in social studies.
-
Religion isn't taught in American public schools k-12 but I really think it should be in the later high school years along with economics.
There is nothing wrong with a comparative studies class on the history of religions/mythologies. Especially as an elective course.
That's arguably about as far as it needs to go in a public school imo. If people want their specific religion taught to their kids they should put them in private schools.
-
We were taught bare essentials about the various religions in 10th grade world history, but that was it.
-
Define the "bare essentials"?
Do kids really need to be indoctrinated in any religion in public school? The school system does a find job of comparing the various world religions, and individual impact on culture and history. Anyone with a decent public education should be able to grasp the fundamentals of any modern religion.
That's really all it needs to do.
-
We had a brief overview of world religions once or twice in high school, but that was about it.
I'd be okay with having religion [or religions] taught as an elective course, but if people are really that concerned about their children being taught what they think is right then they need to teach it to them, either in the home or in church. It'll have a much bigger impact that way.
-
They basically went over it like this:
Monotheism - Christianity, Judaism, Islam
Polytheism - Hinduism, Buddhism (yes, they did include this), Shinto, some other shit
They basically just divided the different faiths in to the two categories, but didn't go over what they actually believe,
And I agree that children don't need to be indoctrinated into religion while in school, but I feel that more insight into what they actually believe rather than separating them into mono or poly categories could go a long way for people learning to accept and appreciate the differences in all the religions.
-
I dont see how this is even an issue, something thats not science shouldnt be in science class.
It's the same culture war bullshit that certain people who align themselves with religion have been pushing ever since evolution came along.
It's a paranoid fear that "God" is being removed from the culture or attacked so the defense response is to try to fight back and insert him where he doesn't belong.
Now, since the culture warriors have to live with the injustice of a black president they've gone even more berserk. Thus, the birth of the Conservative Bible Project, which exists to remove liberal bias from the bible. No, I'm not kidding. (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project)
-
We had a brief overview of world religions once or twice in high school, but that was about it.
Maybe its gotten better since I was in high school which is certainly possible but I don't really remember being taught jack about any religions or their history. But perhaps I just tuned out or something.
I don't have a problem with religion being taught as the history of the religion. In an academic fashion. I actually think that's a good thing.
What some of these people really want though is religion not taught as history but as a hidden religious class. As in the same mindset that is similiar to let's stick God in science class just because.
I have a feeling they would have an equal amount of problems with a religion class actually taught in a historical manner.
-
We covered the blood spilled in the name of religion more than the actual religions themselves :rock
-
The problem with such classes is that they might present all religions positively, as if all the world religions were all appetizing entrees on a giant buffet table. The warts need to be exposed, too.
-
And I agree that children don't need to be indoctrinated into religion while in school, but I feel that more insight into what they actually believe rather than separating them into mono or poly categories could go a long way for people learning to accept and appreciate the differences in all the religions.
No offense, this is stupid.
Pretty much all children are taught about development of the religion (Mohammed and Jesus get a decent amount of face time) and their impact on world history.
Children do not need to know anything else from public education. Do I need to know anything about Christianity other than its formation, its ascension to political power and world history? Same with Judaism or Islam?
Not just that, in public school, I learned all major religions core beliefs and historical text. That's really all kids need to learn.
-
Of course, Malek.
And I agree that children don't need to be indoctrinated into religion while in school, but I feel that more insight into what they actually believe rather than separating them into mono or poly categories could go a long way for people learning to accept and appreciate the differences in all the religions.
No offense, this is stupid.
Pretty much all children are taught about development of the religion (Mohammed and Jesus get a decent amount of face time) and their impact on world history.
Children do not need to know anything else from public education.
We weren't taught about Mohammed at all. :lol
-
Sounds like you went to a pretty lame public school.
I remember pop quizzes on what the various religious texts were called for each religion, its founders, etc.
We were even taught about Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.
-
Not just that, in public school, I learned all major religions core beliefs and historical text. That's really all kids need to learn.
As I say this may be one of those things that has gotten better since I've been out of school which has definitely been awhile but I was definitely never taught these things.
Religion was only ever broached as a side topic. As in these group of people over here have the religion of X.
But never ever having X broken down as to what X means outside of a name. And certainly not the history of X.
To pull a random example everything I knew about Islam in high school came from reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X. Not from being taught about Islam.
-
The school was pretty good, actually, they just completely held back when it came to religion. We were taught evolution and the religion stuff was, for the most part, skipped entirely.
Daoism, Confucianism were completely skipped in that class.
-
The problem with such classes is that they might present all religions positively, as if all the world religions were all appetizing entrees on a giant buffet table. The warts need to be exposed, too.
Which is why I don't understand this thread at all. Kyle's mom would be in an uproar.
-
We didn't learn about anything in high school that I can recall. Then again, I spent my first two years of HS out in the sticks and if anything would have been taught there, it would have just been a sneak Christian indoctrination class. I'll never forget our creative writing teacher getting in trouble with the super crazy religious asst. principal for singing "Plastic Jesus" in class. Fun stuff.
For my last 2 years, my family moved into a really nice neighborhood in Sandy Springs (north Atlanta) and I went to a public school that was as close to a private school in terms of quality of education as you can get. So we didn't learn about any crappy religious nonsense there.
-
Well, apparently Montgomery County, Maryland has a better public school system than most.
I do not think you can do world history justice without learning the fundamentals of various religions, but outside of their individual formation, contrasting tenants, historical figures and world impact, everything else should be researched outside the classroom.
-
We had religion class 4 hours or so a week, from age 10 to age 15 (our school system is different, so the usual high school shit doesn't apply), with continuing classes in gymnasium depending on direction. Covered most major religions and some obscure ones, and the focus was on general belief systems, practicing cultures, history and historical impact. I think the focus shifted depending on whether or not the teacher was at all religious, but the general rule was no bias.
-
... although, for assignment, we did have to read The Tao of Pooh. Maybe that could be considered religious propaganda? My liberal instructors have been outed!
-
many ID teachings are questionable with little to no evidence backing them, but the same can be said of evilution :smug
-
Aren't there tons of studies and mountains of research reaffirming Darwin's theory?
-
evilution :lol
-
In my ass backwards state, we never had a religion class, and creationism was never mentioned once in school, especially in science classes.
-
In my ass backwards state, we never had a religion class, and creationism was never mentioned once in school, especially in science classes.
We had debates about creationism and evolution in my biology class in HS, but creationism wasn't mentioned by the teacher once as an alternative.
-
Stolen from GAF, which was stolen SA
(http://www.e-imagesite.com/Files2/Largemvmhjk15624046.jpg)
-
Why we still got monkeys?
-
Aren't there tons of studies and mountains of research reaffirming Darwin's theory?
where's the evidence? :smug
-
Aren't there tons of studies and mountains of research reaffirming Darwin's theory?
where's the evidence? :smug
:lol
(http://www.c-fam.org/imgLib/20081219_wendy-wright.gif)
-
I went to a Christian high school and in Religion class we were taught about all the world religions and a few minor ones if I remember correctly. Ofcourse the main focus was on the bible, but we got word of other stuff.
Catholic high school here. First two years it was bible stuff, 3rd and 4th christian hippy stuff, 5th and 6th other religions, lots of buddhism...we even visited a Buddhist temple.
ID should be ridiculed in history or religion class or whatever. Keep out of science cause it's not science, you don't teach every idea ever thought of in science class, you teach science: the method, established ideas and facts and maybe some new scientific hypothesis if there's time.
-
There was a paragraph about Jesus in public school and a chapter or two on Islam/Islamic golden age time period. We watched a movie on Mohammad as I recall.
Evolution and Religion need to be taught more, one in Science and the other in a Humanities like class. The populace is poorly informed on both. Letting this socio-cultural battle create this divide is just a way to manipulate individuals into easier controlled groups.
-
It's not how much religion is taught that matters, it's how it is thought. In my middle school, they just gave out facts on who it was started by, their holy text, and a few major practices. What they need to do is at the high school level, have mandatory philosophies classes where you have to argue a certain viewpoint. That would actually get people a little bit interested in learning about the other philosophies/dogmas.
ID is just too distinguished mentally-challenged for any class. It's a "theory" with no physical evidence. Plus, it's too vague/simple for a philosophies class or even for a section of a chapter in a history book.
-
Dude, do you ever make sense?
School is a place for learning, not for endorsing religions. Kids need the facts; having them advocate specific religions is distinguished mentally-challenged. :lol
-
Furthermore, the ridiculous viewpoint that having children challenge each other with religious viewpoints would lead to some kind of enlightenment or general acceptance of beliefs, rather than the much more likely scenario of insults and culture clashes. :rofl
-
How do you get that that's endorsing religion? You put them in like a group of 5 with everybody assigned a different religion. Then they have to find out what that religion believes about a certain social issue (ie death penalty) and try to give those arguments in a debate like fashion.
This is not meant to cause a divinity debate or to change anybody's mind about the logic of the Trinity or if Israel is legit or whatever. It's actually probably impossible to pull off something that simple with kids but it's probably the only way you could constructively get kids to learn about other religions. Just teaching a few basic facts and major beliefs about each religion doesn't really do them any good.
-
Dude, you should check your tap water for contaminates, because you're not making any sense. And this is coming from someone who promotes cultural sensitivity and religious understanding.
Public school is a place for learning, not religious indoctrination. We do not live in a theocracy, and the further organized religion is removed from our schools - the better. It is not the responsibility of the public school system to teach religious understanding or preach the values and/or beliefs of any religion. That is the responsibility of parents and individual students.
There is nothing to gain from the inclusion of religious studies in public school, and all public education should be limited to the historical and cultural context of any particular religion. If they want to further research the religion, that should be done outside the classroom.
Bringing religious studies into public schools runs the risk of alienating students with their own personal beliefs, alienating students that voluntarily abstain from organized religion and inciting bigotry from groups of defensive students that will denounce opposing religious viewpoints out of immaturity.
That's not to mention that train wreck that is creating a syllabus for such a class and finding suitable instructors. Most Americans are religious, and asking instructors to remain objective is a ridiculous conceit. I can just imagine that CNN headlines now: "Middle school teacher fails student for advocating Islam in Religious Studies class".
Again, why are the essential facts and major beliefs not enough? If you want to preach a particular religion or have your child involved in religious studies, send them to private school. Most folks send their kids to public school to learn, and religious studies should never be apart of that.
-
I went to an Episcopal School from pre-K to 8th grade. Church 5 days a week. Our science classes taught evolution and once a week we'd have a religion class taught by one of the Fathers from the church. I never came out of it with anything contradictory, although I never managed to listen to a damn word in church in 10 years. Always zoned out and wondered why there were reading from a book that was so old compared to the school books and singing songs that didn't rhyme.
-
It's good to know you were actually taught evolution! :D
... again, if you're sent to a private school, the curriculum should be left up to that particular institution. But if my taxpayer dollars are footing the bill for your education, then I just want you to learn crazy things like facts and historical/cultural impact - that's all.
Call me crazy.
-
although I never managed to listen to a damn word in church in 10 years. Always zoned out and wondered why there were reading from a book that was so old compared to the school books and singing songs that didn't rhyme.
Slightly off topic but one of the most boring, mind numbing, dreadful experiences as a child was being dragged to Church every week by my mother as the preacher droned on for hours. It felt like time actually stopped during those periods...
Fortunately my mother had a bad experience with that particular church so she stopped going and stopped making us go although in her later years she has gotten religious again.
-
although I never managed to listen to a damn word in church in 10 years. Always zoned out and wondered why there were reading from a book that was so old compared to the school books and singing songs that didn't rhyme.
Slightly off topic but one of the most boring, mind numbing, dreadful experiences as a child was being dragged to Church every week by my mother as the preacher droned on for hours. It felt like time actually stopped during those periods...
Fortunately my mother had a bad experience with that particular church so she stopped going and stopped making us go although in her later years she has gotten religious again.
Yeah, if you want your kids to hate church, force them to go.
-
You should teach religion for the same reason you should teach history. It's not to say that one person was right or wrong or anything, it's to teach different viewpoints and learn from what other people did. Just giving out basic facts about major religions won't do the students any good. If you make them research the different beliefs on their own and learn to communicate those beliefs, they'll become more rational in the end.
But like I said, it does sound impossible for kids not to fuck that idea up.
-
Just giving out basic facts about major religions won't do the students any good.
Why? I fail to understand why facts won't do children good.
If your aim is religious and cultural tolerance, then - again - that is not the responsibility of the public school system. At that point, you're asking the school to do a parent's job.
If you make them research the different beliefs on their own and learn to communicate those beliefs, they'll become more rational in the end.
But like I said, it does sound impossible for kids not to fuck that idea up.
Yeah, I don't know what world you live in where this wouldn't blow up spectacularly.
-
You should teach religion for the same reason you should teach history. It's not to say that one person was right or wrong or anything, it's to teach different viewpoints and learn from what other people did. Just giving out basic facts about major religions won't do the students any good. If you make them research the different beliefs on their own and learn to communicate those beliefs, they'll become more rational in the end.
But like I said, it does sound impossible for kids not to fuck that idea up.
I'm going to do a broad and mean spirited stereotype here but whatever. The reality is that the average parent in this country (maybe every country) doesn't want their kids to know much about other religions beyond the basic idea of those are the wrong ones, and whatever the parents practice is the right one.
-
And quite frankly, if I'm agnostic, I don't want you teaching my child religious beliefs.
Teenagers are susceptible to peer pressure - don't pollute my child's mind with religious dogma. The line between an instructor saying Christians believe Jesus is the son of God and affirming that Jesus is the son of God is one I don't want our school system to go down.
-
I'm going to do a broad and mean spirited stereotype here but whatever. The reality is that the average parent in this country doesn't want their kids to know much about other religions beyond the basic idea of those are the wrong ones, and whatever the parents practice is the right one.
I disagree that the majority of parents teach their children that other religions are wrong, but for the most part, this is correct. Parents don't want the school system contradicting the religious and moral values they spend years imprinting on their children.
I'm all for religious understanding, but in depth analysis and research of organized religion needs to occur outside the classroom.
-
Just giving out basic facts about major religions won't do the students any good.
Why? I fail to understand why facts won't do children good.
If your aim is religious and cultural tolerance, then - again - that is not the responsibility of the public school system. At that point, you're asking the school to do a parent's job.
That's why I said it should have the same goal as a history class, you teach them the facts AND the motivations of the people of those religions and the student will gradually become more open-minded and rational. If you just give a student a bunch of facts, they'll forget it all after the test. It's sort of just a big waste of time.
-
That argument doesn't make any sense.
Teaching children facts is useless, because they'll choose to ignore it? Versus, what, instructing them on religious tenants?
... Education is about the facts. If you think the facts are a waste of time, then you think education is a waste of time.
-
ITT: the world's most limited adults talking about what kids do or do not need to learn in school. smh.
-
ITT: duckman advocates one sentence replies and brings nothing to the discussion. smh.
-
Okay, learning just the facts when it comes to science or math makes total sense. In history for example, you have learn the moral motivations of the people as well as the facts to learn why certain events happened. Same thing with religion, you make a person research the religion and debate using it and they'll be more concerned with the motivations of those people and with where the moral lines get gray. Teens are probably too horny and filled with ritalin these days to make that idea work though so whatever.
-
Man the interview made me mad. Dawkins presented himself well this time though.
-
ITT: duckman advocates one sentence replies and brings nothing to the discussion. smh.
Beats advocating ignorance because of some belief that discussion can't take place without it "blowing up." Seems like that attitude, to some extent, might be to blame for this, and that simply shutting out something that is so critical to any society will only make people more on the edge about it. Like I said, our religion classes were based on information, but it certainly also involved the philosophical end, in addition to cultural and historical. The motivations are pretty critical to understanding why the historical impact is what it is. We had one or two big fights over it when beliefs were questioned, but everyone learned something.
And for the record, I do not trust parents to do what's necessary. These kids will at some point be part of my society, so they had better know more than what their parents want them to know.
-
At what point did I advocate ignorance?
Teaching children facts does not equate ignorance.
-
Not letting them go beyond plain facts inspires ignorance. You could never really understand why the facts are what they are without some idea of the philosophies that caused historical events and laid the groundwork for whole cultures. I'm assuming this attitude is to blame for Clem and Jim being so honestly flabbergasted when they find out that other cultures like their weird and twisted cultures just fine.
-
The motivations are pretty critical to understanding why the historical impact is what it is.
None of that is important to the discussion. For instance, I do not need to have more than a basic understanding of Christianity to know why Christians fought The Crusades.
And for the record, I do not trust parents to do what's necessary. These kids will at some point be part of my society, so they had better know more than what their parents want them to know.
That's a fine opinion and all, but it's not your choice.
-
Not letting them go beyond plain facts inspires ignorance. You could never really understand why the facts are what they are without some idea of the philosophies that caused historical events and laid the groundwork for whole cultures.
Yes, you can. I do not need to learn detailed religious beliefs and values of any particular religion to grasp historical context.
... again, you are trying to do what am nintenho is doing, and advocating religious understanding - which is not the job of the public school system.
-
That's a fine opinion and all, but it's not your choice.
I'll be doing my best to make that my choice. I don't see it as being in the best interest of society, so I'll fight for this in whatever school district my child attends school.
... again, you are trying to do what am nintenho is doing, and advocating religious understanding - which is not the job of the public school system.
And you have yet to provide a compelling argument to support that view. If it involves learning and promotes understanding, it absolutely belongs in a public school system. Propaganda and steering a student towards one or the other, I'll leave that to private schools. Maybe instead of limiting the schools, it should be up to the parents to further educate the child after the classes? I'm up for that challenge.
-
It is your choice certainly to engage in debate, but it is not your choice to dictate that the public school parent someone's child. And that's the beauty of America, is that I should be able to send my kid on a bus to learn facts and not religious values.
-
It is your choice certainly to engage in debate, but it is not your choice to dictate that the public school parent someone's child. And that's the beauty of America, is that I should be able to send my kid on a bus to learn facts and not religious values.
Why not? I attempt to influence the rights of others in every other way related to our society, why on earth should public schooling be any different? For the sake of the society that my family is part of, I suggest that this should be part of the curriculum.
-
And you have yet to provide a compelling argument to support that view. If it involves learning and promotes understanding, it absolutely belongs in a public school system.
Support what view - teaching kids facts instead of religious dogma? The argument is that it's called SCHOOL, not CHURCH.
Propaganda and steering a student towards one or the other, I'll leave that to private schools. Maybe instead of limiting the schools, it should be up to the parents to further educate the child after the classes? I'm up for that challenge.
I've said this from the beginning. I'm all for teaching children the same curriculum bestowed upon me in public school, which included the formation, influential figures and historical/cultural of all world religions.
If a parent wishes to educate their child further on a particular religion, that's within the right. If a student wants to research a particular religion, they should do that to.
Outside the classroom, the sky is the limit.
-
Isnt the beauty of America that Duckman can argue against you though?
I know. :drake
Why not? I attempt to influence the rights of others in every other way related to our society, why on earth should public schooling be any different? For the sake of the society that my family is part of, I suggest that this should be part of the curriculum.
You can argue all you want, but as long as separation of church and state exists, I don't have to worry about that.
And in my opinion, we haven't removed religion from school enough.
-
Support what view - teaching kids facts instead of religious dogma? The argument is that it's called SCHOOL, not CHURCH.
A church is (typically) limited to one view, a good philosophy of religion curriculum should be open to everything. Reference the values and principles of each religion, and take the discussion from there. That's hardly indoctrination.
-
A church is limited to one view, a good philosophy of religion curriculum should be open to everything. Reference the values and principles of each religion, and take the discussion from there. That's hardly indoctrination.
It is if you're raising your child to be agnostic.
-
It is if you're raising your child to be agnostic.
The fact that you are talking about raising a child to be agnostic is pretty telling. The child can make that choice, or never make a choice, for whatever reason. It can also drop out of them, again for any reason. I'll fight it if my kid chooses Christianity, but I'd prefer if she was given access to more philosophies rather than less. Simply removing the religions from their view, that seems to me like you're in fact promoting ignorance.
-
I'm not promoting anything. I'm not even agnostic! And what if a child is agnostic, regardless of parental influence, and finds himself alienated in such a class? What then?
... The fact that you are willing to refute another viewpoint is telling. Religion has no place in public schools and even the execution of what you are referring to is completely impractical.
It's just you, trying to make the government parent other people's children, instead of talking to the parents themselves.
But I expect that kind of argument from ignorant religious zealots. :-\
-
I'm not promoting anything. I'm not even agnostic! And what if a child is agnostic, regardless of parental influence, and finds himself alienated in such a class? What then?
Why would an agnostic person feel alienated in a class that covers all religions, and preferably non-religion as well? Uninterested, that I could understand. If the child is very confused, then the child can talk to its parents about it. I'd much rather have that, then a bunch of ignorants running around making big decisions based on limited understanding.
I'm aggressively atheist, but that doesn't mean that I want a school system that avoids teaching things because they are too loaded. Probably because I consider that attitude to be part reason why it is so loaded in the first place. Seems a bit similar to the conservatives that want to ban sexual education in schools because of some belief that talking about it will make the kids horny and wild. :/
-
One of my favorite classes in college was Mythology, which, thanks to the crackpot teacher, was actually a religion class that covered all religions, and something about trees being all-important.
I always find learning about religions interesting, but not when I'm forced to choose something I don't believe.
-
What a stupid fucking argument.
"You admitted that science doesn't have all the answers, therefore the solution to filling those gaps is to rely on Christianity, one of hundreds of religions that also provide no proof about God, but we're damn sure it's the correct one!"
-
I'm not necessarily against that, Cohen. ... but I don't think we should be having religious discussion in school.
Why would an agnostic person feel alienated in a class that covers all religions, and preferably non-religion as well?
So, in a class that apparently is designed to promote discussion of religious beliefs and values, a minority - especially a non-religious one - won't feel alienated whatsoever when all his classmates talk about their religion?
Did you ever go to public school, at all?
I'm aggressively atheist, but that doesn't mean that I want a school system that avoids teaching things because they are too loaded. Probably because I consider that attitude to be part reason why it is so loaded in the first place.
It's not ignorance, your idea is impractical.
Who decides the syllabus? Who decides how much of a religion and how little is taught? What if one religion doesn't like the a particular aspect being discussed (let's see how touchy Islam gets)? What if parents do not want their children to learn about religion? What about instructors, who themselves might be religious?
-
Also, where do you draw the line on what religions to educate on? Do you fringe elements, like Scientology? What about the Church of Satan?
-
One of my favorite classes in college was Mythology, which, thanks to the crackpot teacher, was actually a religion class that covered all religions, and something about trees being all-important.
I always find learning about religions interesting, but not when I'm forced to choose something I don't believe.
There was no distinction between religion and mythology in our school. The major religions were referred to as such, but with the exception of one Jewish lady who spent her short time there ripping on Islam, Arab culture and Palestinians in particular, there was never a sense of bias. And that is where the parents should come in. Instead of limiting it for everyone, parents should simply make sure that the teaching are balanced and without bias. My dad heard about this Jewish lady, and I believe he ripped the Principal of the school a new one over it.
Wondering though, should we also not teach politics in school? After all, politics have a strong philosophical base, so if you want your child to grow up without a preference for one political system over another, we probably shouldn't teach politics.
So, in a class that apparently is designed to promote discussion of religious beliefs and values, a minority - especially a non-religious one - won't feel alienated whatsoever when all his classmates talk about their religion?
Why would they be alienated? There is most certainly room for non-religion in a class about religion. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have multi-page religious threads on boards that are filled with atheists and religious nutters. Let it be heated if it must. And at worst, it will be uninteresting, much like any other given class in school if you're not interested in the subject.
-
Most school systems teach politics as it relates to the government, not as it relates to your own personal ideology.
And even that's been a hot topic for some parents who think instructors exhibit liberal or conservative bias.
-
And yeah, we discussed occultism in our classes. It was a fringe subject that I made bigger because it interested me. The same went for the largely non-religious Church of Satan brand of satanism, and comparisons to other types of satanism.
-
O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.
-
Why would they be alienated? There is most certainly room for non-religion in a class about religion. If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't have multi-page religious threads on boards that are filled with atheists and religious nutters. Let it be heated if it must. And at worst, it will be uninteresting, much like any other given class in school if you're not interested in the subject.
Public school is not the Internet. If you don't think there won't be severe cases of alienation depending on religious denomination or lack thereof in a public school (especially in various parts of the continental United States), you're being naive.
Again, did you ever go to public school?
In a perfect society, would I love religious harmony, a complete absence of racism and cultural understanding? Sure.
... but we don't live in one of those, and your solution is not only impractical, but could dangerously erode self-esteem for a few minorities depending on its execution - if not lead to outright persecution. Religious discussion might benefit children to some degree, but it won't dispel ignorance, bad parenting, etc.
As long as parents can preach their religion and imprint their prejudices on their child, bringing religious discussion into public schools is asking for trouble.
So your next solution is to, what, send the parents to parenting school?
-
O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.
His argument really irked me, because he made it a philosophical one... which has absolutely nothing to do with science. I think it's unanimous that Jesus was a pretty groovy philosopher, but I was unaware that he had the answers to the universe!
-
O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.
His show is a nightly exercise in bad logic, jingoism, strawman argumemts, bogey men, and the occasional Dennis Miller "I stopped being funny the moment 9/11 happened" appearance.
-
I think it's pretty hard to be a religious minority in the US and not be interested in how other forms of religion function, even if you're not religious. This stuff about alienating that "minority" kid doesn't really make sense considering most kids are pretty politically correct in the classroom and the teacher will get reamed if they don't teach the religion chapters in an unbiased and respectful way. Yeah, I can understand momentary discomfort in the same way seeing an STD cartoon is uncomfortable but that'll go away after a couple days.
-
although I never managed to listen to a damn word in church in 10 years. Always zoned out and wondered why there were reading from a book that was so old compared to the school books and singing songs that didn't rhyme.
Slightly off topic but one of the most boring, mind numbing, dreadful experiences as a child was being dragged to Church every week by my mother as the preacher droned on for hours. It felt like time actually stopped during those periods...
Fortunately my mother had a bad experience with that particular church so she stopped going and stopped making us go although in her later years she has gotten religious again.
I'd always be pissed I had to go to church because I wanted to stay home and watch Doug/Rugrats/Ren and Stimpy.
-
O'reilly's argument about believing Christianity is the correct religion cause of how Jesus is still remembered to this day is pretty dumb too. By that logic we should be worshipping the likes of Socrates and Plato as well.
His show is a nightly exercise in bad logic, jingoism, strawman argumemts, bogey men, and the occasional Dennis Miller "I stopped being funny the moment 9/11 happened" appearance.
And Dawkins just sits there and takes it, more or less, and that's what irks me about him whenever I see him on television to present his point of view - especially on Fox News. He's too well mannered, too intelligent, and too polite for the rhetorical shouting matches that constitutes most of America's political/news programs today. You need someone like Christopher Hitchens to put them in their fucking place. Even drunk off his ass the man could destroy ORielly in a theological and/or scientific debate. Of course "debate" and the O'Rielly Factor are rarely, if ever, congruent.