Should religion have a place in Schools

[Robert Magoo]

One problem with having a blanket ban on teaching of/about religion... Religions have had a significant effect on the history of the world.

History is one thing, religion is another. The fact that the Crusades happened doesn't mean the Bible has to be read in public schools.

If it gives you a better understanding of the crusades, why not?

[Ovisterra]

History is one thing, religion is another. The fact that the Crusades happened doesn't mean the Bible has to be read in public schools.

If it gives you a better understanding of the crusades, why not?

Yeah. If you approach the text as material for assisting with historical education, then what harm can it do?

[SpectacularSpectacular]

History is one thing, religion is another. The fact that the Crusades happened doesn't mean the Bible has to be read in public schools.

If it gives you a better understanding of the crusades, why not?

They already do teach the religious reasons for the crusades. Teaching the religion does not aid in understanding why they went to war...Every kid does not have to 'walk a mile as a christian' just to understand the reasons for the crusades.

[Samuraikoku]

If it gives you a better understanding of the crusades, why not?

Yeah. If you approach the text as material for assisting with historical education, then what harm can it do?

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

[Ovisterra]

Yeah. If you approach the text as material for assisting with historical education, then what harm can it do?

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

Indeed. That's my point. If you are looking at the bible for history class, it's A-Ok even outside a religious school.

On another note, it is darn near impossible to find a non-religious public school where I live. Stupid, huh?

[SpectacularSpectacular]

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

Indeed. That's my point. If you are looking at the bible for history class, it's A-Ok even outside a religious school.

On another note, it is darn near impossible to find a non-religious public school where I live. Stupid, huh?

Why would you need the Bible to teach about the crusades? Don't history text books already cover the reasons? Pretty sure they did when I was in school.

[Samuraikoku]

Why would you need the Bible to teach about the crusades? Don't history text books already cover the reasons? Pretty sure they did when I was in school.

Say the teacher would like a group students to expose the Crusaders' position, find out in depth what the Bible says, and another group of students to act as the Muslims.

[Ovisterra]

Indeed. That's my point. If you are looking at the bible for history class, it's A-Ok even outside a religious school.

On another note, it is darn near impossible to find a non-religious public school where I live. Stupid, huh?

Why would you need the Bible to teach about the crusades? Don't history text books already cover the reasons? Pretty sure they did when I was in school.

Yeah, they would, but if you were doing a really in depth study you might want to. It's not actually needed, but maybe some teachers would, to help their students better understand the topic.

[Robert Magoo]

Yeah. If you approach the text as material for assisting with historical education, then what harm can it do?

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

If you can't read the bible, what's the evidence that they were acting according to the bible?

[Samuraikoku]

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

If you can't read the bible, what's the evidence that they were acting according to the bible?

By "reading the Bible" I didn't mean "literally". I meant "teaching the Bible's (or any religious) doctrine."

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Why would you need the Bible to teach about the crusades? Don't history text books already cover the reasons? Pretty sure they did when I was in school.

Say the teacher would like a group students to expose the Crusaders' position, find out in depth what the Bible says, and another group of students to act as the Muslims.

Maybe they should just stick to the curriculum; also I don't see how reading or teaching religion just to...improve a students acting authenticity(?) really helps them to learn about the Crusades.

[Galla-]

Under no circumstances. Religion has nothing to do with teachings at school, nor will it ever have anything to do with it. Religion shouldn't be TAUGHT, it should be VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN.

Religion should be taught, and its effects on modern history. Religion was a pretty big factor in the modern Western world anyways, and religion has remained a strong factor in the world today. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the three major Western religions should be taught in schools and at least some touching on their effects on modern society. No one is asking for brainwashing or indoctrination, but teaching. Entirely different.

[Samuraikoku]

Say the teacher would like a group students to expose the Crusaders' position, find out in depth what the Bible says, and another group of students to act as the Muslims.

Maybe they should just stick to the curriculum; also I don't see how reading or teaching religion just to...improve a students acting authenticity(?) really helps them to learn about the Crusades.

You're not teaching them religion, you're telling them "go find out what the Crusaders read in the Bible and try to explain their viewpoint.". As for the method in particular, it's up to the teacher.

Under no circumstances. Religion has nothing to do with teachings at school, nor will it ever have anything to do with it. Religion shouldn't be TAUGHT, it should be VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN.

Religion should be taught, and its effects on modern history. Religion was a pretty big factor in the modern Western world anyways, and religion has remained a strong factor in the world today. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the three major Western religions should be taught in schools and at least some touching on their effects on modern society. No one is asking for brainwashing or indoctrination, but teaching. Entirely different.

Once again you wouldn't be teaching, then. You would be simply explaining how religion works.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

If you can't read the bible, what's the evidence that they were acting according to the bible?

So only the bible can establish a connection between the Crusades and Christianity? Ummmm, riiiiiight...Guess you did not take the same kind of history class I did.

[F1-Insanity]

Under no circumstances. Religion has nothing to do with teachings at school, nor will it ever have anything to do with it. Religion shouldn't be TAUGHT, it should be VOLUNTARILY CHOSEN.

Religion should be taught, and its effects on modern history. Religion was a pretty big factor in the modern Western world anyways, and religion has remained a strong factor in the world today. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the three major Western religions should be taught in schools and at least some touching on their effects on modern society. No one is asking for brainwashing or indoctrination, but teaching. Entirely different.

And most definately, the malign histories of said three religions should be taught. No whitewashing, no 21st century 'wishy washy feely goody' revisionism or 'lets leave the nasty bits out and pretend its just fine' stuff.

But why leave it at those three? Some understanding of paganism and atheism is necessary, and what about hinduism?

And of course, his noodly appendage.

[Robert Magoo]

If you can't read the bible, what's the evidence that they were acting according to the bible?

By "reading the Bible" I didn't mean "literally". I meant "teaching the Bible's (or any religious) doctrine."

If you can't read the bible and see for yourself, how do you know that's biblical doctrine?

[Robert Magoo]

If you can't read the bible, what's the evidence that they were acting according to the bible?

So only the bible can establish a connection between the Crusades and Christianity? Ummmm, riiiiiight...Guess you did not take the same kind of history class I did.

I honestly have no clue what kind of point you're trying to make.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

By "reading the Bible" I didn't mean "literally". I meant "teaching the Bible's (or any religious) doctrine."

If you can't read the bible and see for yourself, how do you know that's biblical doctrine?

Are you really arguing whether or not the bible is a religious document? What are you basing your argument on?

[Samuraikoku]

By "reading the Bible" I didn't mean "literally". I meant "teaching the Bible's (or any religious) doctrine."

If you can't read the bible and see for yourself, how do you know that's biblical doctrine?

You don't understand what I'm getting at. Reading a quote from the Bible isn't the same as teaching religion.

[Salandriagado]

So you admit that it requires assumptions.

Yes, it requires the base assumptions on which all of science relies:

1) The universe outside of my individual sentience exists
2) Experiments and observations can be made of that existence that present valid evidence
3) This evidence can be used to show conclusions that are relevant to the wider universe than the single case in which you made the observation
4) The Axioms of Mathematics are valid

[SpectacularSpectacular]

So only the bible can establish a connection between the Crusades and Christianity? Ummmm, riiiiiight...Guess you did not take the same kind of history class I did.

I honestly have no clue what kind of point you're trying to make.

Not the same Eng Comp class either I suppose.

My point is that you do not need to be taught the religion just to understand the conflict and the reasons for the conflict.

[Robert Magoo]

If you can't read the bible and see for yourself, how do you know that's biblical doctrine?

You don't understand what I'm getting at. Reading a quote from the Bible isn't the same as teaching religion.

I thought you said classes shouldn't use the bible?

[Robert Magoo]

I honestly have no clue what kind of point you're trying to make.

Not the same Eng Comp class either I suppose.

My point is that you do not need to be taught the religion just to understand the conflict and the reasons for the conflict.

Apparently you missed the point. Surprise, surprise. (See, I can play your idiotic game, too) The idea that using a certain book in class is somehow in violation of law is a stupid and incorrect point. Using the bible to back a claim =/= "teaching religion."

[F1-Insanity]

But that's not teaching religion. That's saying "the Crusaders believed they acted according to the Bible". LOL

If you can't read the bible, what's the evidence that they were acting according to the bible?

Because the people they were crusading against were 'worshipping false prophets' and thus 'infidels'?

Suppose there are prophets, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you.

The people they went up against worshipped a 'god' of a 'foreign nation'.

But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message.

They people they went up against were essentially listening to a 'prophet' from 'another god' who 'falsely' claimed to speak for the supposed 'real god'.

While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)

An unbelieveress! Kill her (and the guy she is with...). More love 'n' tolerance...

Schools would do well to remind pupils of this.

[Ferrond]

No.