Should Religions Be Taught in Schools?

[Neanderthaland]

When "a few people" have ideals, they're not "American ideals."

America was not largely against slavery at it's founding. Most of the people who were, were for economic reasons. It's further questionable to call opposition to slavery a Christian ideal, since there's a LOT of historical Christian rhetoric going the other way.

Face it, your "glorious Christian past" that America needs to "return to" is a fiction. One you are ignorantly buying into.


Rich people giving up all their wealth never became widespread in America. This "glorious Christian past" that you keep referring back to never exited.

Those few people were the ones that mattered. If they represent America, their ideals should be American ideals. And I don't think that side ever was Christian, really.

In that case, America is non-trinitarian. Because the woman you selected as representing "American ideals" was definitely that.

I think Americans returning to that past is mostly a pleasant fantasy, so I will give you that. It's unlikely.

It's impossible, since the past you're talking about NEVER EXISTED. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

There weren't a lot of rich people during the Gilded Age, but many of those few did do it. Rockefeller and Carnegie are the first examples I can think of, but there were more.

There were a lot of rich people during the Gilded Age. That's WHY IT'S CALLED THAT. And most of them didn't. Rockefeller got famous for being, "the good one."

Really, you have to stop inventing American history to suit your own beliefs. Where are you even getting these ideas? Aren't you German or something?

[The Grims]

When "a few people" have ideals, they're not "American ideals."

America was not largely against slavery at it's founding. Most of the people who were, were for economic reasons. It's further questionable to call opposition to slavery a Christian ideal, since there's a LOT of historical Christian rhetoric going the other way.

Face it, your "glorious Christian past" that America needs to "return to" is a fiction. One you are ignorantly buying into.


Rich people giving up all their wealth never became widespread in America. This "glorious Christian past" that you keep referring back to never exited.

Those few people were the ones that mattered. If they represent America, their ideals should be American ideals. And I don't think that side ever was Christian, really.

I think Americans returning to that past is mostly a pleasant fantasy, so I will give you that. It's unlikely.

There weren't a lot of rich people during the Gilded Age, but many of those few did do it. Rockefeller and Carnegie are the first examples I can think of, but there were more.

Gates, Buffet...
But indeed. Most not christian.

[Geneviev]

Those few people were the ones that mattered. If they represent America, their ideals should be American ideals. And I don't think that side ever was Christian, really.

In that case, America is non-trinitarian. Because the woman you selected as representing "American ideals" was definitely that.

I think Americans returning to that past is mostly a pleasant fantasy, so I will give you that. It's unlikely.

It's impossible, since the past you're talking about NEVER EXISTED. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

There weren't a lot of rich people during the Gilded Age, but many of those few did do it. Rockefeller and Carnegie are the first examples I can think of, but there were more.

There were a lot of rich people during the Gilded Age. That's WHY IT'S CALLED THAT. And most of them didn't. Rockefeller got famous for being, "the good one."

Really, you have to stop inventing American history to suit your own beliefs. Where are you even getting these ideas? Aren't you German or something?

You can be Christian and non-trinitarian. You don't need to choose one denomination to be the most American.

I'm pretty sure it's the Gilded Age because there were very few people who controlled most of the wealth, and a lot of people in poverty.

I am German, but I like to think that I've learned some things from living in the United States so long. Including history.

[The Free Joy State]

Of course. The purpose of a school is to educate children; and religious education, no less and indeed more than other forms of education, is necessary for a child's intellectual growth into a mature adulthood.

Actually there is evidence that being raised religious can be detrimental to raising altruistic children (defined as being selfless and concerned for others); I would consider consideration for others a part of maturity. Secular teenagers also show less concern with what the "cool kids" think than religious teenagers, and express less desire to fit in, suggesting a religious grounding is not actually necessary for a mature perspective.

That said, I do think that teaching children of all religions in school -- equally and encouraging none -- can give children a valuable introduction to the world around them.

When "a few people" have ideals, they're not "American ideals."

America was not largely against slavery at it's founding. Most of the people who were, were for economic reasons. It's further questionable to call opposition to slavery a Christian ideal, since there's a LOT of historical Christian rhetoric going the other way.

Face it, your "glorious Christian past" that America needs to "return to" is a fiction. One you are ignorantly buying into.


Rich people giving up all their wealth never became widespread in America. This "glorious Christian past" that you keep referring back to never exited.

Those few people were the ones that mattered. If they represent America, their ideals should be American ideals. And I don't think that side ever was Christian, really.

I think Americans returning to that past is mostly a pleasant fantasy, so I will give you that. It's unlikely.

Geneviev, you can't decide that those who fit your narrative are the only ones who matter.

You have to understand religion organically, the good and the bad.

Otherwise historical perspective risks being skewed into fiction.

[Neanderthaland]

In that case, America is non-trinitarian. Because the woman you selected as representing "American ideals" was definitely that.


It's impossible, since the past you're talking about NEVER EXISTED. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.


There were a lot of rich people during the Gilded Age. That's WHY IT'S CALLED THAT. And most of them didn't. Rockefeller got famous for being, "the good one."

Really, you have to stop inventing American history to suit your own beliefs. Where are you even getting these ideas? Aren't you German or something?

You can be Christian and non-trinitarian. You don't need to choose one denomination to be the most American.

This is trying to have it both ways. You say "this tiny sample is representative" when you want them to be. But when you don't, they're not. America is not a "Christian nation." It wasn't founded on "Christian ideals." These are just lies. And it's really frustrating that Christianity gets credit for any good deed anyone does, even when they're not Christian. Like Thomas Jefferson. Who, by your "representative" logic, proves that America is "Deist nation."

I'm pretty sure it's the Gilded Age because there were very few people who controlled most of the wealth, and a lot of people in poverty.

"few" in this case, is a lot more than two. Most rich people didn't act like Rockefeller. Wage slavery, and child labor were widespread. There Will Be Blood would be a better representation. This is why so many people were in poverty.

I am German, but I like to think that I've learned some things from living in the United States so long.

Unfortunately I believe you have been massively miseducated. About many things.

This line you're spouting is revisionist history invented by modern Evangelical Christians for the purposes of legitimizing their attempts to take over the country.

[Geneviev]

You can be Christian and non-trinitarian. You don't need to choose one denomination to be the most American.

This is trying to have it both ways. You say "this tiny sample is representative" when you want them to be. But when you don't, they're not. America is not a "Christian nation." It wasn't founded on "Christian ideals." These are just lies. And it's really frustrating that Christianity gets credit for any good deed anyone does, even when they're not Christian. Like Thomas Jefferson. Who, by your "representative" logic, proves that America is "Deist nation."

I'm pretty sure it's the Gilded Age because there were very few people who controlled most of the wealth, and a lot of people in poverty.

"few" in this case, is a lot more than two. Most rich people didn't act like Rockefeller. Wage slavery, and child labor were widespread. There Will Be Blood would be a better representation.

I am German, but I like to think that I've learned some things from living in the United States so long.

Unfortunately I believe you have been massively miseducated. About many things.

This line you're spouting is revisionist history invented by modern Evangelical Christians for the purposes of legitimizing their attempts to take over the country.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only Deist at the time, either. But it didn't influence his other actions at the time. Christianity shouldn't get credit for what non-Christians do, either.

Those things happened. But philanthropy was common at the time among the people who could afford it. They just needed unfair labor practices to afford it.

I don't think it's only evangelicals saying that. I have heard people from other denominations saying the same thing. It's just because that's what is true, and people want the same now.

Those few people were the ones that mattered. If they represent America, their ideals should be American ideals. And I don't think that side ever was Christian, really.

I think Americans returning to that past is mostly a pleasant fantasy, so I will give you that. It's unlikely.

Geneviev, you can't decide that those who fit your narrative are the only ones who matter.

You have to understand religion organically, the good and the bad.

Otherwise historical perspective risks being skewed into fiction.

The ones that I say matter are the people who had the most influence on the founding of the nation. I'm not saying that all of them were Christian. I also know that Christianity was used to defend things that we know now are wrong.

[Evil Empire 666]

This is trying to have it both ways. You say "this tiny sample is representative" when you want them to be. But when you don't, they're not. America is not a "Christian nation." It wasn't founded on "Christian ideals." These are just lies. And it's really frustrating that Christianity gets credit for any good deed anyone does, even when they're not Christian. Like Thomas Jefferson. Who, by your "representative" logic, proves that America is "Deist nation."


"few" in this case, is a lot more than two. Most rich people didn't act like Rockefeller. Wage slavery, and child labor were widespread. There Will Be Blood would be a better representation.


Unfortunately I believe you have been massively miseducated. About many things.

This line you're spouting is revisionist history invented by modern Evangelical Christians for the purposes of legitimizing their attempts to take over the country.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only Deist at the time, either. But it didn't influence his other actions at the time. Christianity shouldn't get credit for what non-Christians do, either.

Those things happened. But philanthropy was common at the time among the people who could afford it. They just needed unfair labor practices to afford it.

I don't think it's only evangelicals saying that. I have heard people from other denominations saying the same thing. It's just because that's what is true, and people want the same now.

All though I am an atheist, I do have to admit I have faith in Lord Satan. So while I would be against them teaching related religion in school, I definitely would approve of teaching Satanism and occultism in school.

[Geneviev]

Anyway, if I want to seem more attentive than I actually am in school tomorrow, I will have to sleep now. Sorry.

[Thyrgga]

Actually there is evidence that being raised religious can be detrimental to raising altruistic children (defined as being selfless and concerned for others); I would consider consideration for others a part of maturity.

That study was retracted.

[Neanderthaland]

This is trying to have it both ways. You say "this tiny sample is representative" when you want them to be. But when you don't, they're not. America is not a "Christian nation." It wasn't founded on "Christian ideals." These are just lies. And it's really frustrating that Christianity gets credit for any good deed anyone does, even when they're not Christian. Like Thomas Jefferson. Who, by your "representative" logic, proves that America is "Deist nation."


"few" in this case, is a lot more than two. Most rich people didn't act like Rockefeller. Wage slavery, and child labor were widespread. There Will Be Blood would be a better representation.


Unfortunately I believe you have been massively miseducated. About many things.

This line you're spouting is revisionist history invented by modern Evangelical Christians for the purposes of legitimizing their attempts to take over the country.

Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only Deist at the time, either. But it didn't influence his other actions at the time. Christianity shouldn't get credit for what non-Christians do, either.

You're right, he wasn't. In fact, a disproportionate number of Deists happened to be among the framers of the American Constitution. Including many of the most influential ones. It would be far more appropriate to say that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were Deist documents than Christian ones. But, of course, that would be wrong too, and for the same reason.

These documents are not owned by any religion. They belong only to themselves. Christianity does not get to lay claim to them. And their ideals are not Christian ideals.

Those things happened. But philanthropy was common at the time among the people who could afford it. They just needed unfair labor practices to afford it.

NO. God damn it. NO NO NO. It was UNCOMMON. That's why people loved Rockefeller. Because he seemed to be an exception to the greedy industrialist who steals all the money and leaves his workers destitute. Mind you, he made all that money on the backs of said destitute workers, so it's kind of a hypocritical PR campaign. But still. He is not common.

You can't just make up shit like this about what was or wasn't common in American history. This would be like me re-inventing Germany history to say, "Actually, the Prussians were a profoundly peace-loving bunch. Who enjoyed Peking opera. And to prove it, I have this one quote from a Prussian who enjoyed Peking opera!"

I don't think it's only evangelicals saying that. I have heard people from other denominations saying the same thing.

Yeah, no the Catholic right has largely jumped on the bandwagon with the evangelicals. Sometimes you'll hear similar stuff from more conservative branches of usually laid-back denominations. But it's mostly just because they've fallen for the lie.

It's just because that's what is true, and people want the same now.

IT IS NOT TRUE. Stop saying it's true. You're breaking the 9th Commandment.

[The Free Joy State]

I am German, but I like to think that I've learned some things from living in the United States so long.

Unfortunately I believe you have been massively miseducated. About many things.

This line you're spouting is revisionist history invented by modern Evangelical Christians for the purposes of legitimizing their attempts to take over the country.

I've heard worse historical revisionism on the subject of slavery by Evangelical Christians.

That Real Christians^TM didn't practise slavery is pretty bad, but the worst I've ever seen (in an Evangelical Christian textbook) is that slavery was a Christian institution and slaver-owners were really nice people. I'm not kidding:

"A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well."
United States History for Christian Schools

[Neanderthaland]

Unfortunately I believe you have been massively miseducated. About many things.

This line you're spouting is revisionist history invented by modern Evangelical Christians for the purposes of legitimizing their attempts to take over the country.

I've heard worse historical revisionism on the subject of slavery by Evangelical Christians.

That Real Christians^TM didn't practise slavery is pretty bad, but the worst I've ever seen is that slavery was a Christian institution and slaver-owners were really nice people. I'm not kidding:

"A few slave holders were undeniably cruel. Examples of slaves beaten to death were not common, neither were they unknown. The majority of slave holders treated their slaves well."
United States History for Christian Schools

That's the Divinely Ordered Society of the American South speaking. This was absolutely the party line that was given in defense of slavery until at least the Civil Rights movement. And you still see it trotted out from time to time.

Not only did they treat slaves well, dontcha know, they actually benefited from being slaves under the wise tutelage of their benevolent masters. As God intended.

[Thyrgga]

Geneviev, you can't decide that those who fit your narrative are the only ones who matter.

You have to understand religion organically, the good and the bad.

Otherwise historical perspective risks being skewed into fiction.

If we decide whether America is Christian based on the opinions of the peasants, then it's rather solidly Christian, although there is a nontrivial minority today that is irreligious.

The confusion about Christianity's relationship to slavery, ethnocentrism, civil rights, etc. stems from the fact that there isn't just one Christianity. There are more traditional and less traditional forms, and the less traditional forms ended up giving birth to modern progressivism and secular humanism.

[Kernen]

The US has never pushed state atheism, though sometimes k wish it would.

It has not because it has never had a state religion, no matter WHAT certain factions may claim. It specifically did not have a state religion, NOR did it ban religion, specifically because of what has happened with the various sects of Christianity warring with one another across Europe. In the Treaty of Tripoli, Adams was very clear in stating that the US was NOT a Christian nation.

That treaty was abrogated, FWIW, and is apparently not dispositive based on contemporary domestic law.

[Albrenia]

All though I am an atheist, I do have to admit I have faith in Lord Satan. So while I would be against them teaching related religion in school, I definitely would approve of teaching Satanism and occultism in school.

Sorry if this is just a joke zooming above my head, but if you have faith in Satan you're not an Atheist. To believe in the real existence of the Satan of Christian teachings is to have implied belief in God. Just because you reject Him as worthy of worship does not mean you deny His existence, if you did you'd understand the Morning Star is also fictional.

If you're the philosophical sort of satanist who more uses him as the archetypal rebel against authority but don't think he's real, ignore this.

[Thepeopl]

I think i might have misinterpreted the question in the OP.

I read this as: should we teach about religion, which ones are there and what is holy/ taboo for them?

If this is the case, my answer is yes. We should educate our children about religion/ spirituality.

If the OP meant : religious beliefs from only 1 religion is taught, then my answer is no. I rather not teach beliefs as facts.

[Geneviev]

Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only Deist at the time, either. But it didn't influence his other actions at the time. Christianity shouldn't get credit for what non-Christians do, either.

You're right, he wasn't. In fact, a disproportionate number of Deists happened to be among the framers of the American Constitution. Including many of the most influential ones. It would be far more appropriate to say that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were Deist documents than Christian ones. But, of course, that would be wrong too, and for the same reason.

These documents are not owned by any religion. They belong only to themselves. Christianity does not get to lay claim to them. And their ideals are not Christian ideals.

Those things happened. But philanthropy was common at the time among the people who could afford it. They just needed unfair labor practices to afford it.

NO. God damn it. NO NO NO. It was UNCOMMON. That's why people loved Rockefeller. Because he seemed to be an exception to the greedy industrialist who steals all the money and leaves his workers destitute. Mind you, he made all that money on the backs of said destitute workers, so it's kind of a hypocritical PR campaign. But still. He is not common.

You can't just make up shit like this about what was or wasn't common in American history. This would be like me re-inventing Germany history to say, "Actually, the Prussians were a profoundly peace-loving bunch. Who enjoyed Peking opera. And to prove it, I have this one quote from a Prussian who enjoyed Peking opera!"

I don't think it's only evangelicals saying that. I have heard people from other denominations saying the same thing.

Yeah, no the Catholic right has largely jumped on the bandwagon with the evangelicals. Sometimes you'll hear similar stuff from more conservative branches of usually laid-back denominations. But it's mostly just because they've fallen for the lie.

It's just because that's what is true, and people want the same now.

IT IS NOT TRUE. Stop saying it's true. You're breaking the 9th Commandment.

They're not just Christian documents. They contain ideals that are Christian, even if they weren't only written by Christians.

So I actually looked up a few more. Of the four main industrialists at the time, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, and Vanderbilt all gave away money. It was the norm for them, even if it was only possible because of mistreating labor and not paying them properly.

Also, I just want to comment that Prussians were relatively peace-loving, compared to my ancestors.

[Dogmeat]

You're right, he wasn't. In fact, a disproportionate number of Deists happened to be among the framers of the American Constitution. Including many of the most influential ones. It would be far more appropriate to say that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were Deist documents than Christian ones. But, of course, that would be wrong too, and for the same reason.

These documents are not owned by any religion. They belong only to themselves. Christianity does not get to lay claim to them. And their ideals are not Christian ideals.


NO. God damn it. NO NO NO. It was UNCOMMON. That's why people loved Rockefeller. Because he seemed to be an exception to the greedy industrialist who steals all the money and leaves his workers destitute. Mind you, he made all that money on the backs of said destitute workers, so it's kind of a hypocritical PR campaign. But still. He is not common.

You can't just make up shit like this about what was or wasn't common in American history. This would be like me re-inventing Germany history to say, "Actually, the Prussians were a profoundly peace-loving bunch. Who enjoyed Peking opera. And to prove it, I have this one quote from a Prussian who enjoyed Peking opera!"


Yeah, no the Catholic right has largely jumped on the bandwagon with the evangelicals. Sometimes you'll hear similar stuff from more conservative branches of usually laid-back denominations. But it's mostly just because they've fallen for the lie.


IT IS NOT TRUE. Stop saying it's true. You're breaking the 9th Commandment.

They're not just Christian documents. They contain ideals that are Christian, even if they weren't only written by Christians.

Every time I think you've gotten better Geneviev, you pull the same bullshit.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's not true. It was never true.

You are just making every idea that you like "Christian." And giving Christianity credit for every good thing that people do. And when people point this out to you very explicitly, you just ignore them, and repeat yourself.

At this point, even ostriches are embarrassed for you.

[Page]

Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only Deist at the time, either. But it didn't influence his other actions at the time. Christianity shouldn't get credit for what non-Christians do, either.

You're right, he wasn't. In fact, a disproportionate number of Deists happened to be among the framers of the American Constitution. Including many of the most influential ones. It would be far more appropriate to say that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were Deist documents than Christian ones. But, of course, that would be wrong too, and for the same reason.

These documents are not owned by any religion. They belong only to themselves. Christianity does not get to lay claim to them. And their ideals are not Christian ideals.

Those things happened. But philanthropy was common at the time among the people who could afford it. They just needed unfair labor practices to afford it.

NO. God damn it. NO NO NO. It was UNCOMMON. That's why people loved Rockefeller. Because he seemed to be an exception to the greedy industrialist who steals all the money and leaves his workers destitute. Mind you, he made all that money on the backs of said destitute workers, so it's kind of a hypocritical PR campaign. But still. He is not common.

You can't just make up shit like this about what was or wasn't common in American history. This would be like me re-inventing Germany history to say, "Actually, the Prussians were a profoundly peace-loving bunch. Who enjoyed Peking opera. And to prove it, I have this one quote from a Prussian who enjoyed Peking opera!"

I don't think it's only evangelicals saying that. I have heard people from other denominations saying the same thing.

Yeah, no the Catholic right has largely jumped on the bandwagon with the evangelicals. Sometimes you'll hear similar stuff from more conservative branches of usually laid-back denominations. But it's mostly just because they've fallen for the lie.

It's just because that's what is true, and people want the same now.

IT IS NOT TRUE. Stop saying it's true. You're breaking the 9th Commandment.

Or breaking the 8th commandment for those who were/are Catholic.

[Geneviev]

They're not just Christian documents. They contain ideals that are Christian, even if they weren't only written by Christians.

Every time I think you've gotten better Geneviev, you pull the same bullshit.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's not true. It was never true.

You are just making every idea that you like "Christian." And giving Christianity credit for every good thing that people do. And when people point this out to you very explicitly, you just ignore them, and repeat yourself.

At this point, even ostriches are embarrassed for you.

The good things people do are Christian ideals.

[The Grims]

Every time I think you've gotten better Geneviev, you pull the same bullshit.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's not true. It was never true.

You are just making every idea that you like "Christian." And giving Christianity credit for every good thing that people do. And when people point this out to you very explicitly, you just ignore them, and repeat yourself.

At this point, even ostriches are embarrassed for you.

The good things people do are Christian ideals.

So allowing two consenting adults to express their love through marriage is a christian ideal ?

[Ifreann]

Every time I think you've gotten better Geneviev, you pull the same bullshit.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's not true. It was never true.

You are just making every idea that you like "Christian." And giving Christianity credit for every good thing that people do. And when people point this out to you very explicitly, you just ignore them, and repeat yourself.

At this point, even ostriches are embarrassed for you.

The good things people do are Christian ideals.

That's an unfortunate response to a post accusing you of giving Christianity credit for every good thing that people do and ignoring any argument to the contrary in favour of just repeating yourself.

[Geneviev]

The good things people do are Christian ideals.

So allowing two consenting adults to express their love through marriage is a christian ideal ?

It always has been.

[Alvecia]

So allowing two consenting adults to express their love through marriage is a christian ideal ?

It always has been.

*multiple people are typing*

[Kowani]

So allowing two consenting adults to express their love through marriage is a christian ideal ?

It always has been.

Not like marriage predates Christianity or anything.