# Can religion/Bible be taught objectively in public schools? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 8, 2007, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156 "2007-03-08T20:43:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2007, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/81 "2007-03-11T23:53:39Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] The Roman Catholic Church does not hold that only Christians are saved. The Orthodox Church does not hold that only Christians are saved. The Anglican Communion does not hold that only Christians are saved. The Lutheran communions are more divided on the topic, with some groups who associate with Fundamentalist groups holding that only those who believe in Jesus may be saved while most of the ELCA does not teach that. The Presbyterians appear to be divided on the topic, with, again, more Fundamentalist-oriented groups accepting the damnation of those who do not believe while the official position is that the decision of who will be saved and damned “rest with God.” The Society of Friends does not believe non-believers are damned. I even know Baptists who do not thaink that non-believers are damed, (although that number is much smaller than in the previous groups). [/QUOTE] cites? ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2007, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/82 "2007-03-11T23:58:50Z")
[http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity\_of\_Baptism.asp](http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp) “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Wrong about the Catholics. Took me three minutes to find that one. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/83 "2007-03-12T00:00:24Z")
[http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism\_ext.htm](http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism_ext.htm) “Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ.” Wrong about the Orthodox. Two additional minutes. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/84 "2007-03-12T00:08:41Z")
> **[Lutheranism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism)** > > Bible Translators > Theologians > Lutheranism is a major branch of Protestantism, identifying primarily with the theology of Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk and reformer whose efforts to reform the theology and practices of the Catholic Church launched the Protestant Reformation. “By God’s grace, made known and effective in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a person is forgiven, adopted as a child of God, and given eternal salvation.” Wrong about the Lutherans (the Anglicans are less clear) ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/85 "2007-03-12T00:17:09Z")
I’ll give you part of the divide Presbyters and the Quakers. But saying that you “even know Baptists” who don’t think salvation is necessary admits that most Baptist believe that Salvation from Hell (which the Christian “loving” God created) lies only through Jesus Christ. Want to prove I’m wrong? Instead of whining and complaining come up with some cites. So far you haven’t substantiated a thing. You’ve made assertions but mere assertion is not proof. I have provided proof. You do the same now. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/86 "2007-03-12T01:11:27Z")
[QUOTE=braintree] Tomndebb. You are one of the weaseliest debaters I’ve yet run into. [/QUOTE] I agree. Since **tom** thinks that some of what you are arguing is off topic, perhaps you should start a new thread in which **tom** defines and defends what he thinks is the right Christian message. Then you can watch him weasel out of that too. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/87 "2007-03-12T01:37:13Z")
[QUOTE=braintree] [http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity\_of\_Baptism.asp](http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp) “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Wrong about the Catholics. Took me three minutes to find that one. [/QUOTE] And you (typically) found a simplistic example that you did not bother to try to understand, using snipped phrases instead of comprehension. (See below.) [Catechism of the Catholic Church](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm) sections 836 - 848 > [@](#): > > “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.” (Never mind that the last priest who made the claim that one had to be Catholic (never mind Christian) in order to be saved was excommunicated.) [QUOTE=braintree] [http://www.fatheralexander.org/book...techism\_ext.htm](http://www.fatheralexander.org/book...techism_ext.htm) “Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ.” Wrong about the Orthodox. Two additional minutes. [/QUOTE] And again you grab a simplistic quotation and miss the expression of the church: [The Final Judgement](http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=207) > [@](#): > > Every man will stand judgment before God for his life in this world. Each person will be judged according to his words and his works. [Heaven and Hell](http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=208) > [@](#): > > At the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the Face of Christ. Man’s eternal destiny - heaven or hell, salvation or damnation - depends solely on his response to this love. I’m sure you can find other cherry picked quotations that support your view, but they are not the actual beliefs held by the churches on which you are digging up quotes. Your tenuous grasp of genuine theology is no better than your failure to grasp the anthropological understanding of how religions use scripture. You did not even bother to read (much less understand) the statment from the Catholic article to which you, yourself, linked that goes on to say > [@](#): > > Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a _normative_ rather than an _absolute_ necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through “baptism of blood,” martyrdom for Christ, or through “baptism of desire”, that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism. > > Thus the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283). > > As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood. In other words, the church recognizes that God calls all people to Himself and He does not damn them for having failed to make it through a ritual. Even the later passages that refer to a person rejecting the church are understood in Catholic theology to require that the person fully underastand and believe that the church is the correct path and then choose to reject it; a person who has learned of the church but who does not actually believe that it is the true path is under no such condemnation. The majority of the mainstream Christian denominations use that understanding (not always expressed in the same way so as to not appear too similar to the Catholics) when viewing non-Catholics and it is generally only the Fundamentalist groups who insist on the literal action of Baptism. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/88 "2007-03-12T01:41:00Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] I agree. Since **tom** thinks that some of what you are arguing is off topic, perhaps you should start a new thread in which **tom** defines and defends what he thinks is the right Christian message. Then you can watch him weasel out of that too. [/QUOTE] “Let’s you and him fight” posts are not acceptable on this message board. I have no interest in participating in a thread where I set out beliefs and I would only participate to point of correcting the factual errors that you or **braintree** might post. You are right, however, that this silly hijack is clearly off-topic for this thread, so perhaps you would stop pursuing that hijack simply to attempt to wage a feud with me. ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/89 "2007-03-12T02:49:25Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] “Let’s you and him fight” posts are not acceptable on this message board. [/quote] That’s good **tom** , because I did not suggest that you and him should fight. Merely that you and him should continue the debate in a thread for which that is the topic. This is the debate forum isn’t it? I would be glad to join in, but I think **braintree** would do quite well without me. Also, since when is it against the rules to suggest that a new thread be started on a topic? Or is this another one of those made up rules to apply to me only? > [@](#): > > I have no interest in participating in a thread where I set out beliefs… Told ya. > [@](#): > > You are right, however, that this silly hijack is clearly off-topic for this thread, so perhaps you would stop pursuing that hijack simply to attempt to wage a feud with me. Actually I didn’t think **braintree** was hijacking anything, I was just pointing out that **you** said it was off topic and **you** used that as a reason not to respond to inconvenient questions, when the fact is, you know that specifically acknowledging your beliefs and trying to defend them, scripturally or otherwise, would not go well for you. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/90 "2007-03-12T03:17:54Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] Also, since when is it against the rules to suggest that a new thread be started on a topic? [/QUOTE] You did not suggest that he start a new thread to discuss the issue. You suggested that he start a new thread “in which **tom** defines and defends what he thinks.” Telling Poster A to start a thread for the purpose of having Poster B make declarative statements to be attacked and defended is pretty much the same as saying “Let’s you and him fight,” especially since you know from many exchanges that I do not dabble in discussions to define beliefs, particularly mine. Got any more dishonest declarations? Or would you like to participate in a discussion of whether religion can or should be taught in schools rather than trying to bait me? ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/91 "2007-03-12T03:38:37Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] You did not suggest that he start a new thread to discuss the issue. You suggested that he start a new thread “in which **tom** defines and defends what he thinks.” [/quote] And you have some reason to think that doing so would be in the form of some kind of fight rather than a debate? > [@](#): > > Telling Poster A to start a thread for the purpose of having Poster B make declarative statements to be attacked and defended is pretty much the same as saying “Let’s you and him fight,”… No, it’s the same as saying “Let’s you and him debate.” I think I understand why you don’t wish to. > [@](#): > > …especially since you know from many exchanges that I do not dabble in discussions to define beliefs, particularly mine. I just wanted to see that point made clear for **braintree**. That point being that you really enjoy using your erudition to point out small motes in the thinking of others, but that you maintain a big smokescreen so others can’t see the logs in your own reasonings. > [@](#): > > Got any more dishonest declarations? Have you stopped beating your wife? Well, ok, since you asked, how about another honest declaration. That you are being accused weaseling in another forum as we speak. You might take that stuff as a hint. > [@](#): > > Or would you like to participate in a discussion of whether religion can or should be taught in schools rather than trying to bait me? You’re as guilty of this hijack as I am. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/92 "2007-03-12T05:36:18Z")
[QUOTE=braintree] [http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity\_of\_Baptism.asp](http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp) “Baptism is necessary for salvation.” Wrong about the Catholics. Took me three minutes to find that one. [/QUOTE] from your own link Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and **all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized** ” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. took me less than three minutes to see you were dead wrong. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/93 "2007-03-12T05:47:09Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] You’re as guilty of this hijack as I am. [/QUOTE] I have responded to your interruptions out of courtesy. The hijack initiated by **braintree** was organic in that arose from a dispute over a specific comment on the topic. I have, on several occasions noted that his arguments were irrelevant to the actual topic, although he appears to disagree with that assessment. On the other hand, your interruptions have had nothing to do with the topic, being merely personal swipes at me. Cool it. Take it to the **Pit** or drop it, but if you keep using this thread to simply bash me, you are going to get a time out. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![badchad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b77776/32.png) [@badchad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/badchad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/94 "2007-03-12T06:51:03Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Take it to the **Pit** … [/Moderating] [/QUOTE] Fine. > **[Tomndebb is one weaselly mother fucker…](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=411956)** > > … and it’s not just me that noticed. Tom you kind of remind me of Rush Limbaugh, just sitting back and criticizing your opposition while keeping your own irrationalities hid as best you can. Well to be fair to Rush he doesn’t hide his... ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/95 "2007-03-12T15:21:04Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] from your own link Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and **all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized** ” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. took me less than three minutes to see you were dead wrong. [/QUOTE] Excuse me but it says “all those who \*\* without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration and grace\*\*…” In plain English without knowing of the church means that one is ignorant of the church. This is clearly an exception for someone who’s never heard of Christianity or Catholicism. Therefore if you know of the Chruch but reject it anyway, it’s right back to Atich EEE double hockey sticks. And even without that your argument doesn’t make sense. Look if you say that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that’s a simple declarative sentence which means that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If I say you need a ticket to get into the theater but then say I’ll let you in anyway it doesn’t make the first statement simplistic what it does do is show that I’m an inconsistent bastard talking out of both sides of my mouth. If you Christians can’t keep your stories straight you realy shouldn’t complain about being misrepresented. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/96 "2007-03-12T15:29:23Z")
Yes, religion COULD be taught intelligently in the public schools, but it’s highly unlikely that it WOULD be. The reason is that the incredible amount of superstition and ignorance among American Christians would prevent them from even listening (or allowing their children to listen) to an intelligent presentation of religion. \*\*Oakminster \*\* is right – in theory, religion (being the personal belief system that it is) should be taught only in the home and church. Unfortunately, homes and churches are doing a crappy job of teaching religion. And, with all due respect, a lot of religious schools aren’t doing much better. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/97 "2007-03-12T15:47:44Z")
… ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/98 "2007-03-12T16:31:08Z")
“All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.” Has this as quoted always been part of the catachism? Your remark about “the last priest who made the claim that one had to be Catholic…in order to be saved was excommunicated” makes me suspect that there has been a revision. If so, when did that happen? “Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ.” This is a simple, declarative sentence the meaning of which is unambiguous. Either salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ or it doesn’t. It can’t be both ways. If a bunch of Orthodox Christians say they believe that you have faith in Jesus to keep from burningn in hell who am I to doubt them? “At the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the Face of Christ. Man’s eternal destiny - heaven or hell, salvation or damnation - depends solely on his response to this love.” Exactly. You have to respond to God’s love as beheld in the face of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t say “But whether through Jesus Christ or not the important thing is God’s love” There is no such clarification so this actually helps prove my point. There’s a misunderstanding here that’s clearly my fault. I only cared about baptism in that it significes acceptance of the church. Therefore, it says you have to be part of the church in order to be saved because if it doesn’t I don’t know what you’re getting baptised for. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/99 "2007-03-12T16:55:44Z")
[QUOTE=braintree] “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.” [/QUOTE] I read some comments on this part of the catechism, and it seems clear to me that while all men are called, those who do not respond are not saved. Catholic means everyone, and, unlike Judaism, Catholicism is open to anyone. I’ve also read a lot of contradictory opinions on the state of salvation of those who believe in God but do not accept Jesus. This appears to vary by Pope. I don’t think any Pope wants to stir things up by explicitly saying that Jews and Moslems are not saved, but saying they are would tend to make the central core of Christianity a bit pointless. So, the passage says that all are invited to believe in Jesus, but claiming it says all can be saved without this belief seems to be pushing it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156/100 "2007-03-12T16:59:42Z")
[QUOTE=braintree] If you Christians can’t keep your stories straight you realy shouldn’t complain about being misrepresented. [/QUOTE] But the initial challenge was that you lumped all Christians together as one monolithic entity. No one asked you to (mis)represent Christianity. The point was that there are multiple beliefs under the larger umbrella of Christianity and you falsely pretend that discrepancies between different groups represent inconsistencies within each group–a point you have failed to establish and which you can only assert by misreading the texts at which you so cursorily glance. There is no crime in being ignorant of theologies in which you have no interest. On the other hand, it is a sign of willfull ignorance (that one should not be so ready to demonstrate) to attack different theologies as though they were one and to do so impelled by that very ignorance. “Plain language”? You come across like a person who denies evolution occurred because it is “just a theory.” Every discipline of thought develops its own language–law, philosophy, the various branches of science, music, art, theology, etc. Picking up a tract written in the language of a particular discipline and attacking it because you do not choose to take the time to learn the language says more about you than about the object of your attack. This is not to say that you have any reason to find such texts compelling, or even interesting. You might even be correct in your basic rejection. However, your attacks, as posted, demonstrate a silly reliance on ignorance to make your case. [QUOTE=braintree] There’s a misunderstanding here that’s clearly my fault. I only cared about baptism in that it significes acceptance of the church. Therefore, it says you have to be part of the church in order to be saved because if it doesn’t I don’t know what you’re getting baptised for. [/QUOTE] Baptism and participation in the church is sought because it is the position of the church that ultimately all people will be happier and come closer to God if they recognize the role of Jesus in the world and participate the Body of Christ, his church. (YMMV, obviously.) The point (in Orthodox and Catholic theologies) is that humans do not decide who will or will not be saved and while they have a command to bring people to God through Christ, they are not about to put limits on whom God may choose to save. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-religion-bible-be-taught-objectively-in-public-schools/395156.md?page=6)