CDZ Religion vs. Science, American schools edition

[Brian_1349]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

 

[Brian_1349]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[quorthon]

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?
How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?
Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

I think these scientology sects are better to be banned, just like in Europe. First they claim they teach science and prove there is no God, then they gather communities of likeminded people and build financial pyramids.

 

[oldfart]

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

I think you are on the same side as the original poster. If religion is covered in a history or philosophy or literature course; it is entirely appropriate. But in this setting it is also subject to analysis and criticism. The groups referred to in the OP do not want religion to be subject to any criticism (at least not their religion!.
And they want religion to be inappropriately introduced into scientific discussions in biology and cosmology, with the caveat that it be treated as an equal cognitive framework without being subject to the usual scientific scrutiny.

I note that many of the proponents of religion in the classroom are hostile to any religion being there except their own. Fundamentalist Christians show no curiosity or enthusiasm for a study of Buddhism or Islam, which also have significant historical and literary value. The OP referred to "indoctrination". Indoctrination is not education, and any demand to include religion uncritically in a classroom is a display of bad faith and ignorance of the most reprehensible kind.

 

[paddymurphy]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

English literature serves the purpose of educating them in the art of writing; of the ability to convey thoughts and idea to others. Evolution serves the purpose of explaining to them the biological process. Foreign languages serves the purpose of enabling them to communicate with people from other nations. All of those help to create better, more productive citizens. Religion can serve that purpose as well, but whose religion gets taught? Teaching about religion is fine. Teaching that this is the one true religion; teaching that they have to believe in god and worship god serves no purpose.

 

[paddymurphy]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

When everyone is the same religion, including it in a school's curriculum poses little problem. But, in this country, we are not all of the same faith. I am a Catholic and my views are far removed from the views of fundamentalists. The problem is not teaching about religion, but the actual practicing of religion. Teaching someone about the different religions in the world and what their basic tenets are is one thing; telling kids that these tenets of this faith are the corrects ones and the ones they need to follow is quite another. I attended Catholic Schools for 12 years. Our religion classes were all about educating us in our faith. We learned a bit about other faiths, but we were taught that our faith was the one true faith. How do you do that in a public school with kids of many different faiths and of no faith?

 

[Nosmo King]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

Religion could be taught in Philosophy class, but not in a science class.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religion can be taught in liberal arts or humanities or comparative religion classes. Science is taught in science class.

As far as the creationist group: hit them with a lawsuit and make them pay big fees.

 

[paddymurphy]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

Religion could be taught in Philosophy class, but not in a science class.

When you say "taught", what do you mean? The advocates of putting religion back in classes do not want it "taught"; they want it advocated. They want there to be Christian Prayers said and Christian values taught as the right values.

 

[Nosmo King]

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

Religion could be taught in Philosophy class, but not in a science class.

When you say "taught", what do you mean? The advocates of putting religion back in classes do not want it "taught"; they want it advocated. They want there to be Christian Prayers said and Christian values taught as the right values.

That level of 'teaching' belongs in Sunday school, not public school.

 

[oldfart]

When everyone is the same religion, including it in a school's curriculum poses little problem. But, in this country, we are not all of the same faith. I am a Catholic and my views are far removed from the views of fundamentalists. The problem is not teaching about religion, but the actual practicing of religion. Teaching someone about the different religions in the world and what their basic tenets are is one thing; telling kids that these tenets of this faith are the corrects ones and the ones they need to follow is quite another. I attended Catholic Schools for 12 years. Our religion classes were all about educating us in our faith. We learned a bit about other faiths, but we were taught that our faith was the one true faith. How do you do that in a public school with kids of many different faiths and of no faith?

Emphasis mine. There is a difference between faith and religion. Religion is a belief system that generally involves a worldview encompassing the origin and ultimate end of the world (or a denial that there was a beginning and will be an end), a set of values to guide our behavior, and often some concept of deities and afterlife. A faith is a belief system that informs our view of how the universe works and from that develops a guide to behavior. Religions are by these definitions faiths, but not all faiths are religions.

About half of the world's population have a faith but not a religion. I believe that everyone except a few very mentally ill people have a faith. Many cannot articulate it very well, but everyone who interacts in society has a belief system that tells them what is proper behavior and what is not. So the problem is often misstated. People without a religion do not have to "find" one; they need to examine their own beliefs and cognitively recognize what their belief system and faith are composed of.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A non-religious "faith" is called ethics in the secular world.

 

[Josf]

When religion is counterfeited what happens to genuine relgion?

When science is counterfeited what happens to genuine science?

Deception becomes the rule, not the exception.

Genuine science often compliments genuine religion and visa-versa. Counterfeit science often compliments counterfeit religion and visa versa.

Examples abound if anyone cares to look.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When religion is counterfeited what happens to genuine relgion?

When science is counterfeited what happens to genuine science?

Deception becomes the rule, not the exception.

Genuine science often compliments genuine religion and visa-versa. Counterfeit science often compliments counterfeit religion and visa versa.

Examples abound if anyone cares to look.

Please give us some.

 

[Josf]

If a Christian follows the teaching of Jesus Christ then Matthew 7:12 lays down the law:

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

If someone tortures confessions out of someone accused of heresy, then it follows reason, genuine religous doctrine above, that the same someone would be perfectly willing to accept torture to himself if anyone accused him or heresy. Since that is provable as being false, since those who torture are those who would never allow themselves to be tortured (if it was in their power to prevent being tortured), the torturer is no Christian; not by the Law and the Prophets according to the words attributed to Jesus Christ in more than a few copies of the Bible.

The example therefore of false religion is a time period called The Inquisition.

False science, or fraudulent science, or counterfeit science might include an example such as so called Scientology. Genuine science is not that difficult to understand and put to good use, and I can quote from a source that may offer a competitive explanation.

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagres with the predictons of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphesized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increasesd; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory. At least that is what is suppoed to happen, but you can always question the competence of the person who carried out the observation."

I thought that last sentence was meant with at least a little bit of humor in mind.



That can be considered a theory. If someone decides that torture must be applied to that indivdual for their sin of heresy, then that would be more than a theory, that would be a willful act perpetrated by a guilty criminal upon an innocent victim. The words used to describe the act of torture are choices made by me, where my theory is that Mathew: 7:12 is true, in a lawful sense. I can be as wrong as anyone in my theories about religion, science, law, word choices, the genuine meaning of torture, on and on.



Proof, as they say, is in the pudding?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can argue all of that in Comparative Religions, Josf.

 

[Josf]

I do not argue, what would be the point?