I’m not saying that they can’t; I’m saying that they won’t, in too many places. At least, not without something drastic like bringing in out-of-state teachers for those classes, and forcing all kids in the area to attend, instead of being dragged off for “home schooling” away from evil liberal-satanic-atheist teachers.
Knowledge yes, religious indoctrination, no. And I’m afraid that in much of the country that’s exactly what you would get; state funded religious indoctrination. Or the kids would be removed from school and “home schooled”.
After catching part of an interview with Professor Prothero on the radio, I went and looked his book up on the internet, as well as an article about it-I think it was the Newsweek article- and it looked very interesting. The idea was interesting as well, but it’s never going to work, for the reason religion was pulled out of the public schools in the first place, according to Prothero: the different religious groups do not want their children taught other religions, period. I have no idea why he thinks people will be any different now. Most believers will not want their kids exposed to other creeds and ideas, with the possible message that they are all of equal worth.
I once heard a guy who talked about how he was a staunch advocate of school prayer, until he attended a sporting event somewhere that they prayed to a god other than his own, and then he was 100% against it. I think too many people will be like this about the idea of teaching religion in schools. Everyone will want their own taught and nobody else’s, and the only reasonable compromise is the one we have now. Nobody’s gets taught in schools.
Agreed. I don’t think that a “Religion” course would be good, and certainly not a “Bible Study” course. But I could definitely see a “Sociology” course being added to the curriculum.
It’s the Atkins diet. Take away carbohydrates, brains stop working correctly. At this point, I’d consider it a win if ‘how to avoid being an idiot’ could be successfully taught - first to parents.
Um, but didn’t Jesus say that he was the only way to salvation? And Revelations is quite clear about non-believers getting tossed into the eternal lake of fire.
I think the fundamentalists have a point: either the Bible means what it says or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t mean what it says then it’s not much of a holy book. If yhou think about it, you’re making a pretty weird argument: the folks who note what’s in the Bible are biased while those who wrestle, that is to rationalize, its obviousl contradictions are the ones who are being fair minded.
Revelation is a classic apocryphal tale. Operative word: tale. Like fairy tales, the oral tradition of times past relied on magical stories of monsters and terrible wars to illustrate points.
If you read through the Bible, you’ll realize pretty quickly that it can’t possibly mean what it says since in one section it tells people to murder their disobedient children and in another to not kill. In one part it says you shouldn’t drink (or some people interpret a passage that way) and another Jesus goes to a wedding and turns wine into his own body.
Point being that the Bible was never supposed to be read literally, however people seem to have lost sense as the years have gone by and now there are bunches who think it should be. This is actually a new phenomenon. I bet it started no earlier than the 20th C.
I’d consider it a luxury rather than a necessity. A kid that is likely destined for a string of McJobs needs to know how to make change. Nobody cares what he thinks about the differences between major religions. Sure, the study of religion has value. But parents that want that for their children can home school, pay for private school, or take the kid to church.
Huh? The official practice of religion is what was pulled out of the public schools. The reason for that is such practice is unconstitutional. If Prothero doesn’t understand that simple fact, then he’s not all that up on the subject matter he’s addressing.
Well sure, except for parents unable to home school, to poor for private school, and unable to take their kids to the temples of all the worlds great religions. Other than that…great idea.
We sure wouldn’t want the great unwashed exposed to to any higher education that might elevate them beyond Mcjobs.
Well since we’ve already had several people talk about successful classes that have been offered it’s fairly obvious everyone won’t object for the reasons you mentioned. I’m sure some will and in some communities the curriculum won’t fly, but in many teaching about the worlds great religions as part of history or sociology would be accepted by the majority of parents.
There are libraries full of books, free for the lending, all over the country. The knowledge is there for those that choose to pursue it. I think it’s a damn shame we’re passing out diplomas to kids that can barely read. At a minimum, a high school graduate should be able to read, write, handle simple algebra, have some knowledge of civics, history, science, and basic geography. When a kid shows he can handle that, then you can offer him elective courses on other important, but less critical subjects.
Whatever your views of the (in)validity of religions, the question posed in the OP was whether it was possible to teach the tenets of religions, (as in: explain what those tenets might be as perceived by those that hold them). Regardless whether you believe that mainstream Christianity is internally inconsistent, your beliefs would not be what would be taught in such a class (unless you acquired sufficient followers that your beliefs became, themselves, a religion large enough to be included in a high school survey course). I noted in my frst post that it would be legitimate to point out apparent inconsistencies between the declarations of such religions and the scripture on which they are purported to be based. (Of course, such a curriculum should also include their explanations/rationalizations as to why they do not follow the literal dictates of their scriptures.)
Since the majority of mainstream Christian denominations do not hold the beliefs that you would wish to impose on them, (logical or not), expressing your beliefs as some sort of fact would be outside the scope of the course.
Without getting into detailed theology, any serious course in history that omits relgious belief is as much a waste of time as the current war/leader based history that is already (mis)taught in most middle and high school courses.
It wasn’t that long ago that kids such as myself learned to read, make change (i.e. ‘do math’) AND were able to absorb a high-falutin’ course like World Religions. It isn’t impossible to do - I and my cohort are living proof. If people who whine about the terrible state of education would oh, say, attend school board meetings and try to effect change, then maybe things could return to the way they were not that long ago.
It’s craziness to suggest that it’s not possible to teach kids anything more in high school than that they should have learned in grade school. If the system is broken, demand it be fixed, don’t dumb it down even further!!!
I’m not suggesting that. Many things are possible. You got to walk before you can run, and as I see it, our schools are only toddling. I’ve spent years working with poverty cases. I’ve seen too many kids that have high school diplomas that did not get the bare minimum that I described above.
How serious of a Western Civ course do you need at a high school level? You cover the “fertile crescent”, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, maybe mention that China and India exist, Dark Ages, Restoration/Renaisance, American Revolution, French Revolution, WWI, Russian Revolution, WWII, Cold War, Modern Era and you’re pretty much out of time. Yes, you’ll mention religion as it affected world history, but that’s a far cry from having a separate course on comparative religion.
Hell, I don’t know. I know that there’s a problem when the state will give a kid a diploma if he can pass a test demonstrating a 10th grade level of proficiency. That would suggest to me the kid oughta be in 11th grade next year. Poverty, social promotion, school funding, erosion of standards…prolly lots of other stuff too.