CDZ Religion in Schools

[320 Years of History]

In my experience the average business man is not an employee (I represent small businesses with tax troubles, and that's often part of the problem) but instead takes draws, takes reimbursement for capital infusions they made when starting the business

Therein we have a very fine illustration of the shortcomings of anecdotal evidence.

• None
  
• http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn...013/05/20/entrepreneurs-rev-your-engines.html

There are a number of things that can be one's own experience. Despite the fact that most folks think of themselves as "average," and indeed most people are average in nearly all respects, and despite the fact that confirmation bias inspires us to use that experience (hearsay) as the basis for forming our beliefs and sometimes even driving our actions, doing that isn't rationally supportable.

• http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...allacies/confirmation-bias-logical-fallacies/
  
• Argument from Hearsay

One's anecdotes are nearly always great to share and it's nice to hear others' as well, but they have no value other than as ways to gain insight about the speaker and as interesting tales in their own right.

 

[GaryDog]

In my experience the average business man is not an employee (I represent small businesses with tax troubles, and that's often part of the problem) but instead takes draws, takes reimbursement for capital infusions they made when starting the business

Therein we have a very fine illustration of the shortcomings of anecdotal evidence.

• None
  
• http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn...013/05/20/entrepreneurs-rev-your-engines.html

There are a number of things that can be one's own experience. Despite the fact that most folks think of themselves as "average," and indeed most people are average in nearly all respects, and despite the fact that confirmation bias inspires us to use that experience (hearsay) as the basis for forming our beliefs and sometimes even driving our actions, doing that isn't rationally supportable.

• Confirmation bias – logical fallacies
  
• Argument from Hearsay

One's anecdotes are nearly always great to share and it's nice to hear others' as well, but they have no value other than as ways to gain insight about the speaker and as interesting tales in their own right.

Your first link is useless to this discussion. We weren't discussing things in the context of "all workers", we were discussing business owners. Or at least I was. And among them, of the thousands I've represented over 11 years, most invoke fudging and blurring of personal and business expenses. That was my sole point. There is probably IRS audit data out there somewhere that contradicts or supports my point, but I'm not motivated enough to look. Point being, churches have that much extra room -- if they fudge -- to produce increased tax free income for their owners (pastors). And yes, my point is anecdotal. Thanks.

 

[SingleVoyce]

A matter of fact presentation of very basic facts can be included in a Social Studies curriculum.

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.

I just don't think high schoolers MUST be educated in the world's major religions and their basic tenets to have a functioning grasp of the world at large.

I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

First of all:
??? Are you questioning the teachers' adeptness with subject matter itself or with the process of instructing students about it?

I have no mathematics degree or math certificate; however, I've taken quite a lot of math classes, including calculus, linear algebra (LA) and differential equations (DE). I can assure you that there is nothing in any K-12 math text that I do not fully understand. I wouldn't hold myself out as a qualified teacher of LA or DE, but then I'm not aware of any high schools that teach those subjects. What I don't have is pedagogical training.

Next:
The metric cited isn't even accurately cited. Search for "United States" in the World Economic Forum (WEF) reports. You'll find that the only things at which the U.S. is ranked even close to 48th are:

• Mobile telephone subscriptions
• Distortive effect of taxes and subsidies on competition

On the metric called "quality of math and science instruction," the WEF ranks the U.S. at 27th.

Last:
I am astounded that you've actually cited a politician's platform statements as a source of credible information. The guy doesn't even provide a footnote referencing the source of the "data point" he noted and that you have pasted into your remarks above.

Looking at the WEF's summary ranking of U.S. education, what the WEF calls its "fifth pillar" in assessing competitiveness, the U.S. ranks number 1, in an eight-way tie.

• Summary rankings: Competitiveness Rankings
  
• Breakdown of the U.S. ranking: Economies

Closing thoughts:
It seems to me you've found a politician who is even less trustworthy and who has even less integrity than Donald Trump or any candidate in recent history from the Dem or Rep parties. Unlike Trump, this guy has fabricated his own facts and attributed them, in print no less, to a respected organization.

Did you really think nobody would actually check the source seeing as you provided a link for it? I'd like to ask Mr. Kotlikof what he was thinking when he cited that utter lie. His doing so can be thought of nothing less than malfeasant prevarication.

P.S./Edit:
It took me all of two minutes to figure out that Mr. Kotlikof had fabricated the data point in question here.

Search for world economic forum quality of math and science education 2013 and you'll find that table 5.02 shows us coming in at 47 in Quality of math and science education. That's pretty close to 48. He may have had more recent info. I think you owe Mr. Kotlikof an apology.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR/2013/GITR_DataTable5_2013.pdf

Go take a look at the WEF website and read the metric development methodology for the metrics you/Mr. Kotlikof cited. You'll find that the weighting in them burdens very large countries for being very large and for having lots of schools as a result.

That said, I'm not going to argue that U.S. math and science educational achievement (K-12) can't stand to be improved. It seems that some states don't even have minimum math requirements for high school graduation.

Well, I don't know exactly what it is that you were arguing then but, in any case, we have wandered far from the original intent of the thread. The reason I quoted Mr. Kotlikof's statement was to illustrate the fact that we are not doing a very good job of training our teachers to teach core subjects and, based on that fact, I see no reason to believe that we would or should devote resources to training teachers to teach comparative religion. In the absence of adequate training, I believe it would be counterproductive to add comparative religion courses to high school curricula.

 

[320 Years of History]

This is exactly what I would be proposing. I envision the entirty of the material could be covered in five to six week at most (assuming a 50-55 minute period). It may take even less time, depending on the depth a particular school/district wished to have the students study. I am not, repeat not, envisioning a year long course. I beleive the esential parts of the major religions could be covered in far less time, possibly as a part of a world history course.
I must respectfully disagree with you on this, for reasons I have already covered.

Earlier in this thread, we had a discussion about the training that would be required for teachers to actually teach such a subject in a way that would improve students' understanding of religion. Some of the participants seemed to think this would be fairly easy. I just ran across some statistics that relate to that and thought I would share them:

"The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of mathematics and science education. Sixty-nine percent of our public school students in fifth through eighth grades are taught mathematics by someone without a degree or certificate in mathematics. Ninety-three percent of them are taught the physical sciences by a teacher without a degree or certificate in the subject."

source:

http://kotlikoff2016.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Write-Me-In-Kotlikoff-2016-May-25-Release.pdf

If these basic subjects are being taught mostly by teachers who do not have adequate training, would it really be possible to generate a pool of teachers who are capable of effectively teaching comparative religion?

First of all:
??? Are you questioning the teachers' adeptness with subject matter itself or with the process of instructing students about it?

I have no mathematics degree or math certificate; however, I've taken quite a lot of math classes, including calculus, linear algebra (LA) and differential equations (DE). I can assure you that there is nothing in any K-12 math text that I do not fully understand. I wouldn't hold myself out as a qualified teacher of LA or DE, but then I'm not aware of any high schools that teach those subjects. What I don't have is pedagogical training.

Next:
The metric cited isn't even accurately cited. Search for "United States" in the World Economic Forum (WEF) reports. You'll find that the only things at which the U.S. is ranked even close to 48th are:

• Mobile telephone subscriptions
• Distortive effect of taxes and subsidies on competition

On the metric called "quality of math and science instruction," the WEF ranks the U.S. at 27th.

Last:
I am astounded that you've actually cited a politician's platform statements as a source of credible information. The guy doesn't even provide a footnote referencing the source of the "data point" he noted and that you have pasted into your remarks above.

Looking at the WEF's summary ranking of U.S. education, what the WEF calls its "fifth pillar" in assessing competitiveness, the U.S. ranks number 1, in an eight-way tie.

• Summary rankings: Competitiveness Rankings
  
• Breakdown of the U.S. ranking: Economies

Closing thoughts:
It seems to me you've found a politician who is even less trustworthy and who has even less integrity than Donald Trump or any candidate in recent history from the Dem or Rep parties. Unlike Trump, this guy has fabricated his own facts and attributed them, in print no less, to a respected organization.

Did you really think nobody would actually check the source seeing as you provided a link for it? I'd like to ask Mr. Kotlikof what he was thinking when he cited that utter lie. His doing so can be thought of nothing less than malfeasant prevarication.

P.S./Edit:
It took me all of two minutes to figure out that Mr. Kotlikof had fabricated the data point in question here.

Search for world economic forum quality of math and science education 2013 and you'll find that table 5.02 shows us coming in at 47 in Quality of math and science education. That's pretty close to 48. He may have had more recent info. I think you owe Mr. Kotlikof an apology.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR/2013/GITR_DataTable5_2013.pdf

Go take a look at the WEF website and read the metric development methodology for the metrics you/Mr. Kotlikof cited. You'll find that the weighting in them burdens very large countries for being very large and for having lots of schools as a result.

That said, I'm not going to argue that U.S. math and science educational achievement (K-12) can't stand to be improved. It seems that some states don't even have minimum math requirements for high school graduation.

Well, I don't know exactly what it is that you were arguing then but, in any case, we have wandered far from the original intent of the thread. The reason I quoted Mr. Kotlikof's statement was to illustrate the fact that we are not doing a very good job of training our teachers to teach core subjects and, based on that fact, I see no reason to believe that we would or should devote resources to training teachers to teach comparative religion. In the absence of adequate training, I believe it would be counterproductive to add comparative religion courses to high school curricula.

Blue:
Have you any credible evidence indicating that insufficient teacher training is the cause? Or that it is one of several material causes?

You are aware that the students pay a key role, the most critical one, in achieving the learning objectives of any class they take. It's been my observation that students who do the work it takes to thoroughly master the material do just that; those who don't reach varying degrees of mastery. I'm not saying there aren't poor teachers; there clearly are. What I am saying is that, like it or not, when a student or parent discovers the teacher is ineffective at teaching the class so s/he learns the material, the burden of "what it takes" is higher, but they must nonetheless do it or suffer the consequences.

I know I certainly had a poor teacher or two in the course of my K-12 education. I would swear even now that every econ professor I had in college absolutely stank as a teacher, but I learned the material all the same. It wasn't easy to compensate for their weakness, but compensate for it was the only available option; thus it's what I did. The same happened to my kids, and they did the same.

The same general phenomenon happens in the professional world too. I'd wager that everyone has had a colleague or peer who didn't "pull their weight" and for whom one had to work harder to compensate for their shortcomings. Well, that's exactly what one must do in school when one gets a poor teacher. One can not like it; I wouldn't. One can caterwaul 'til the cows come home. The fact remains that one must nonetheless competently complete the chore. In adulthood, there are only two grades, "A" and "F," one either does the job one is given to do or one does not.

Red:
Do you know what are the common learning objectives among all humanities and social science courses of study?

• analytical and knowledge-building skills;
• evaluative and critical thinking skills;
• creative thinking skills;
• effective oral and written communication skills;
• critical and reflective reading skills;
• problem solving and pattern intelligence skills;
• synthesis skills and the ability to express the results of analysis and evaluation;
• the ability to pose meaningful questions that advance understanding and knowledge;
• the ability to conduct research and organize material effectively;
• information literacy and other skills associated with learning how to learn;
• the exercise of independent judgment and ethical decision-making;
• the ability to meet goals, manage time, and complete a project successfully;
• self-confidence and self-understanding;
• the ability to cooperate with others and work in teams;
• a sensitivity to individuals and tolerance of cultural differences;
• the ability to use equipment; and
• obtain specific topical knowledge.

I think that few people care whether a student acquires those skills via history, anthropology, philosophy, economics, comparative religion, or any other discipline. That said, students are vastly more likely to achieve those leaning objectives if they have opportunities to do so with regard to subject matter that captures their interest.

Can many of those learning goals be achieved in math and science classes? Of course they can. That is whole point of teaching students about math theorems and asking them to develop/understand simple proofs in algebra, geometry and precalculus classes. Maybe students today are different than they were in my day, but theorems and proofs are, as I recall them, the bane of many a math student's existence, including many who are quite adept at apply theorems to solve problems.

Using Math and Science classes to develop the same skills:
Strictly speaking, students can also hone their writing skills by writing essays about math or science subjects; however, educators are well aware that few high school students have the ratiocination skills needed to present the valid syllogisms required for a math or science essay. Seniors in AP math and science classes might, but that's a bit late to commence developing those skills using math and science contexts to do so, to say nothing of the fact that many high schoolers never take any AP math or science class, thus they'd not develop those skills to any significant level of proficiency prior to graduating.

That leaves them to have to do it either in college/trade school or as young (hopefully) adults in the work force. Looking at the realities of all three of those paths one would have to be profoundly puerile and mentally myopic not to see that waiting that long to develop the skills listed in the bullet points above is practically the "kiss of failure" as goes career success in America.

• College -- College professors and instructors expect students to have pretty well developed the noted skills. Accordingly, the grading of assignments assumes as much and students loose points for not applying those skills. But one can't apply a skill one has yet to develop.
• Trade schools -- These institutions may help build the noted skills to some degree, but mostly they focus on applied thought and action (e.g., using, say, the Pythagorean Theorem rather than logically considering how to show it and other things are or are not valid) rather than rigorous intellectual, conceptual and theoretical thinking.
• Adult in society -- Short of enlisting in the military, the only way one is going to build the noted skills is by self directed scholarly study. People are, of course, capable of doing so, but as a practical mater, they don't. The exigencies of putting food on the table, keeping a roof over one's head, getting laid from time to time, etc. will get in the way for most folks. For example, consider the complaint another member made about how long it took to read what amounts to a 15 page paper. (See this to understand why what is ostensibly 31 pages of paper is more like 15 pages long.)

 

[Picaro]

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

They should learn about the actual theologies of the major religions, yes. They should also learn that they are not 'equivalent', or all 'equally bad or good', and some are indeed far better than others as a philosophy and model for societies, using comparative results of their influences on culture and progress. But that would make the PC Nazis go nuts, so it won't happen, as the one that would win hands down in all categories is a target for extermination and genocide at the moment, especially re academia, as it doesn't endorse anal sex between mentally ill males as normal and wonderful, which is the current criteria by which a society is judged these days.

Your response is a perfect example of why the study of major religions should not be required in public schools. It is too difficult for us to keep our opinions out of it.

I think you had difficulty understanding my posts. Your bias is clear and there is nothing wrong with having your opinion. However, public education is not the place for religious indoctrination. Matter of fact discussion about religion in context of studying a foreign country, fine.

I have no idea where you're getting the rest of your accusations from; I'm the one saying NO to pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases.

I understand them perfectly. What you're trying to do is like trying to teach arithmetic without using math, and treating all numbers as equal. It's absurd to remove the theologies from teaching, well, theology ...

Is it 'indoctrination' to inform history and Constitution students of the origin of the concept of church and state, for instance? Or do we just pretend a sect's theology and founding principles don't exist, similar to Japanese and Soviet types of historical censorship? And it is censorship to remove theological aspects from the study of history, law, philosophy, and much of everything else, whether one chooses to accept that is the 'personal choice', not the objective choice.

 

[foggedinn]

It should be a local option.
The specific circumstances of each scool system is different.

 

[Picaro]

It should be a local option.
The specific circumstances of each scool system is different.

It still is, really. It's just that many school districts love the free Federal money, even if it only amounts to 10% of their spending or less, so they comply. The majority could do just as good, or these days just as bad, without it.

In any case, the point still stands that they aren't doing their job if they leave out teaching religions and their importance in history and culture. Omitting it is just a form of indoctrination and lying by omission. You most certainly can't teach American history without it. For example:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

How do you explain the origin of the first clause without explaining its origin as a key tenet of the Baptist faith?

 

[regent]

School administrators do not like their school to teach subjects that could lead to a five o'clock news item. We failed to teach communism when it was most needed because of fear. If I were a school administrator or school board member I would avoid teaching controversial electives and stick with safe ones.

 

[Picaro]

School administrators do not like their school to teach subjects that could lead to a five o'clock news item. We failed to teach communism when it was most needed because of fear. If I were a school administrator or school board member I would avoid teaching controversial electives and stick with safe ones.

How does one go about that in the current climate of pandering to the whining and sniveling of any special interest view as something we should all be sensitive to and should have some 'equal weight' of consideration, even if that view is held by maybe 10 people and opposed by 300 million? The current dystopian, 'Brave New World' mentality of a majority of the New Democrats' Party base is characterized perfectly by this quote:

"NAMBLA" logic - an extreme absolutist position which demands that for logical consistencies sake that certain gross crimes be allowed, in order that no one might feel restrained.-Stirling S. Newberry

A school district in Oregon just got banged for $60 grand by a retarded civil Court justice because some teacher didn't call some mentally ill freak show by it's 'preferred gender' or something.

 

[OldLady]

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

They should learn about the actual theologies of the major religions, yes. They should also learn that they are not 'equivalent', or all 'equally bad or good', and some are indeed far better than others as a philosophy and model for societies, using comparative results of their influences on culture and progress. But that would make the PC Nazis go nuts, so it won't happen, as the one that would win hands down in all categories is a target for extermination and genocide at the moment, especially re academia, as it doesn't endorse anal sex between mentally ill males as normal and wonderful, which is the current criteria by which a society is judged these days.

Your response is a perfect example of why the study of major religions should not be required in public schools. It is too difficult for us to keep our opinions out of it.

I think you had difficulty understanding my posts. Your bias is clear and there is nothing wrong with having your opinion. However, public education is not the place for religious indoctrination. Matter of fact discussion about religion in context of studying a foreign country, fine.

I have no idea where you're getting the rest of your accusations from; I'm the one saying NO to pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases.

I understand them perfectly. What you're trying to do is like trying to teach arithmetic without using math, and treating all numbers as equal. It's absurd to remove the theologies from teaching, well, theology ...

Is it 'indoctrination' to inform history and Constitution students of the origin of the concept of church and state, for instance? Or do we just pretend a sect's theology and founding principles don't exist, similar to Japanese and Soviet types of historical censorship? And it is censorship to remove theological aspects from the study of history, law, philosophy, and much of everything else, whether one chooses to accept that is the 'personal choice', not the objective choice.

This is totally off topic, but I never wrote the above post. Weird.

 

[oldsoul]

It should be a local option.
The specific circumstances of each scool system is different.

It still is, really. It's just that many school districts love the free Federal money, even if it only amounts to 10% of their spending or less, so they comply. The majority could do just as good, or these days just as bad, without it.

In any case, the point still stands that they aren't doing their job if they leave out teaching religions and their importance in history and culture. Omitting it is just a form of indoctrination and lying by omission. You most certainly can't teach American history without it. For example:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

How do you explain the origin of the first clause without explaining its origin as a key tenet of the Baptist faith?

Excellent point. I don't think there is anything that is specific to the "Baptist faith" though.

 

[oldsoul]

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

They should learn about the actual theologies of the major religions, yes. They should also learn that they are not 'equivalent', or all 'equally bad or good', and some are indeed far better than others as a philosophy and model for societies, using comparative results of their influences on culture and progress. But that would make the PC Nazis go nuts, so it won't happen, as the one that would win hands down in all categories is a target for extermination and genocide at the moment, especially re academia, as it doesn't endorse anal sex between mentally ill males as normal and wonderful, which is the current criteria by which a society is judged these days.

Your response is a perfect example of why the study of major religions should not be required in public schools. It is too difficult for us to keep our opinions out of it.

I think you had difficulty understanding my posts. Your bias is clear and there is nothing wrong with having your opinion. However, public education is not the place for religious indoctrination. Matter of fact discussion about religion in context of studying a foreign country, fine.

I have no idea where you're getting the rest of your accusations from; I'm the one saying NO to pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases.

I understand them perfectly. What you're trying to do is like trying to teach arithmetic without using math, and treating all numbers as equal. It's absurd to remove the theologies from teaching, well, theology ...

Is it 'indoctrination' to inform history and Constitution students of the origin of the concept of church and state, for instance? Or do we just pretend a sect's theology and founding principles don't exist, similar to Japanese and Soviet types of historical censorship? And it is censorship to remove theological aspects from the study of history, law, philosophy, and much of everything else, whether one chooses to accept that is the 'personal choice', not the objective choice.

This is totally off topic, but I never wrote the above post. Weird.

That is weird, as it is my OP. Very strange.

 

[Picaro]

It should be a local option.
The specific circumstances of each scool system is different.

It still is, really. It's just that many school districts love the free Federal money, even if it only amounts to 10% of their spending or less, so they comply. The majority could do just as good, or these days just as bad, without it.

In any case, the point still stands that they aren't doing their job if they leave out teaching religions and their importance in history and culture. Omitting it is just a form of indoctrination and lying by omission. You most certainly can't teach American history without it. For example:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

How do you explain the origin of the first clause without explaining its origin as a key tenet of the Baptist faith?

Excellent point. I don't think there is anything that is specific to the "Baptist faith" though.

Most don't know it, because it isn't taught in history classes.

Thomas Helwys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Helwys (c. 1575 – c. 1616), an Englishman, was one of the joint founders, with John Smyth, of the General Baptist denomination.

In the early seventeenth century, Helwys was principal formulator of that distinctively Baptist request: that the church and the state be kept separate in matters of law, so that individuals might have a freedom of religious conscience. Thomas Helwys was an advocate of religious liberty at a time when to hold to such views could be dangerous. He died in prison as a consequence of the religious persecution of Protestant dissenters under King James I.

....

It was in the Dutch Republic that a distinctive Baptist faith first emerged amongst the English émigrés. Open debate amongst the émigrés, and close contact and interaction with earlier English exiles and continental Protestants, led the congregation to question the meaning and practice of baptism, among other things. John Smyth became convinced that baptism should be for Christian believers only and not for infants. The other English émigrés agreed. However, at the same time as Smyth started to embrace Mennonite doctrines, Helwys and a dozen or so others began to formulate the earliest Baptist confessions of faith. This "confession" became the twenty-seven articles in A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland (1611).

In the next twelve months or so, Helwys wrote three more important works: an argument for Arminianism (A short and plain proof, by the word and works of God, that God's decree is not the cause of any man's sin or condemnation: and that all men are redeemed by Christ; as also that no infants are condemned), a polemic explaining his differences with the Mennonites, and, most importantly, A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity, a critique and apocalyptic interpretation of the Papacy as well as criticisms of Brownism and Puritanism, and possibly the first ever English book defending the principle of religious liberty. For Helwys, religious liberty was a right for everyone, even for those he disagreed with.

Despite the obvious risks involved, Helwys and twelve Baptist émigrés returned to England to speak out against religious persecution. They founded the first Baptist congregation on English soil in Spitalfields, east end of London. Early in 1612, Helwys was able to publish A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity. He wrote an appeal to King James I arguing for liberty of conscience and sent him a copy of his book. "The King," Helwys said, "is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them." The King had Helwys thrown into Newgate Prison, where he had died by 1616 at about the age of forty. Helwys' presentation copy of A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity is still preserved in the Bodleian Library.

Thomas Helwys is honoured with the Helwys Hall at Regent's Park College, Oxford. Thomas Helwys Baptist Church, in Lenton, Nottingham is named after him. Broxtowe Hall, the Helwys' family home, is now only a remnant but in nearby Bilborough Baptist Church there is a simple plaque to his memory.

Further reading:

Baptist Classics: Shurden on Thomas Helwys, the Mystery of Iniquity

No other congregation in the American colonies held that principle, and in fact most of the individual states had state supported churches after the signing of the Constitution, though as demographics changed the various states gradually changed their own state constitutions. Massachusetts was the last to do so, in 1833 or so. The principle is one of the reasons Jefferson was anxious for their support in elections and the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists. They played a key role in the First Great Awakening that influenced the Revolution and the Declaration and Constitution, and Second Great Awakening that led to Jefferson's Presidency, along with the Presbyterians and Methodists. Academic fashion would prefer that such facts not be taught, of course.

 

[Picaro]

What if we, as a society, taught our children about all of the major religions of the world?

• First question I had was: How do we determine the "major" religions of the world? For the sake of this debate, we'll say the threshold is 10% of the world population. The following link provides a chart showing just that. Major Religions Ranked by Size
• Second question was: Do we teach just the basics, or include details such as the various sects, if any, within a given religion? I think we should include the primary sects. I don't wish to get into how to determine this(as I don't have a good answer), but I think it is important to understand the differences between the primary sects, in order to get a good picture of the religion as a whole.
• The third, and final question I had was: Why/ why not? Here is where I hope we can focus our discussion.

I, for one am in favor of teaching the major religions of the world, including the "non-religious" as defined in the above link. I mean why not? There are two main reasons for this:

1. Most importantly, for me at least, is to gain an understanding of our "global neighbours". Let's face it, we are a global society and will be for the forseeable future, so we really should understand how different people think, and live. One way to do this is to study religions.
2. There are a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from religious teachings such as:

• The golden rule
• Many of the "Ten Comandments", those governing behaviour within a society.
• Ways of looking at the world
• Ect.

By no means do I envision getting into an indepth theological comparison between the various religions, nor do I envision even discussing who is "right" and so forth. I see these as very personal topics and would be of little value in the scope of learning the basics.

So, what do you think? Why, or why not (please explain yourself)? Should we go about his a different way?

They should learn about the actual theologies of the major religions, yes. They should also learn that they are not 'equivalent', or all 'equally bad or good', and some are indeed far better than others as a philosophy and model for societies, using comparative results of their influences on culture and progress. But that would make the PC Nazis go nuts, so it won't happen, as the one that would win hands down in all categories is a target for extermination and genocide at the moment, especially re academia, as it doesn't endorse anal sex between mentally ill males as normal and wonderful, which is the current criteria by which a society is judged these days.

Your response is a perfect example of why the study of major religions should not be required in public schools. It is too difficult for us to keep our opinions out of it.

I think you had difficulty understanding my posts. Your bias is clear and there is nothing wrong with having your opinion. However, public education is not the place for religious indoctrination. Matter of fact discussion about religion in context of studying a foreign country, fine.

I have no idea where you're getting the rest of your accusations from; I'm the one saying NO to pseudo-intellectual pretenses and biases.

I understand them perfectly. What you're trying to do is like trying to teach arithmetic without using math, and treating all numbers as equal. It's absurd to remove the theologies from teaching, well, theology ...

Is it 'indoctrination' to inform history and Constitution students of the origin of the concept of church and state, for instance? Or do we just pretend a sect's theology and founding principles don't exist, similar to Japanese and Soviet types of historical censorship? And it is censorship to remove theological aspects from the study of history, law, philosophy, and much of everything else, whether one chooses to accept that is the 'personal choice', not the objective choice.

This is totally off topic, but I never wrote the above post. Weird.

That is weird, as it is my OP. Very strange.

I'll go back and look, but I can't edit the post any more anyway; I must have parsed the multi-quote thing incorrectly, I've done it before, because of the way the software embeds the formats.