Tell it to Blaise Pascal.
Regards,
Shodan
Seems to me Pascal did exactly what I am on about. From your link I am unable to tell what his early theological education was like but it sounds as if his education was mostly secular (although for that time I am not sure how his family could have avoided the church much…especially if is father was a government figure). At the least it does not look like he was taught about God hand-in-hand with Geometry (although looks like Pascal may have taught himself geometry).
At the age of 23 he he came to God on his own and became a remarkable thinker on the subject.
Great! Fantastic! I am not here hoping that keeping God out of the geometry classroom will somehow get people to deny God. Far from it. As others have pointed out (WhyNot’s father for example) studying the deeper intricacies of math led him inexorably to a belief in God. The point being is they come to God on their own and find God in their own way.
From your link:
“Acknowledge the truth of religion in its very obscurity . . . for it is not true that everything reveals God, and it is not true that everything conceals God. But it is true at once that he hides from those who tempt Him and that He reveals Himself to those who seek Him.” Pensees 439, 444
Ah.
So you’re using your areligious friend raising in a barely religious household who was encouraged to explore other ideas and even date people of other religions while he went through public schools from early childhood until college graduation as a reason why religious education in our private schools is bad? Gotcha. It’s clear now that your problem isn’t with religious education in geometry class, it’s with religious instruction of children, period. And since that’s another debate entirely, not the one presented in your OP, I think I’m probably done here. Open another thread if you like, it actually is a topic I’m interested in and have a lot to say about, but we’ve already got at least one other side topic going on in here besides the subject of the OP.
And, speaking of another topic:
Right. Once they got into an in-depth study of their topic, they discovered it wasn’t for them. How much less college money and time and angst would have been saved if they had been allowed to explore their interest in depth at age 10 and realized it then? From what I’ve observed, most kids are rabidly interested in, say, dinosaurs at some point. So you teach 'em a lot about dinosaurs (and paleontology and maybe then archeology, which leads nicely into ancient history) while they’re interested in it, instead of arbitrarily when it’s written into the curriculum. You’re right, chances are that they won’t all want to become paleontologists. That’s cool. At least, as you say, they’ll have that information under their belt. Next month they’ll probably be nuts for helicopters, and then you teach them about physics and flying and the history of the military. Eventually, if you’re good and paying attention, it’ll all get covered, and you’ve done each “unit” while the kid was excited about the topic and actually driven to learn.
If I decide to home- or unschool my daughter, I’ll probably do what most do, which is a combination of infrequent testing to ensure that the basics are being covered within a few age years of the rest of the kids, a handful of homeschool group classes to cover what I can’t or don’t want to, and no curriculum but a wide range of topics for the rest. Does it really matter if you learn about Theater History and Technology when you’re 10 or when you’re 13? Why not wait until your kid is inspired by a great play you see together and seize the moment then?
Here’s a simplified chart of state requirements for private schools. I think the best place to find more detailed information for each state is probably at that state’s board of education website.
The wikipedia article on Legality of Homeschooling is pretty good, although it doesn’t have a state-by-state breakdown.
Chotii, my take on the topic of your questionnaire is that the “socialization” parts of school are the most brutal. Lunch, recess and gym, the most hated times of day for most kids. Why? Because they’re allowed to freely “socialize” with the other kids.
Homeschool kids learn how to wait in line by waiting in line at the bank and the grocery store. They learn how to take turns at the deli counter. They learn how to be friends, which includes the negative parts like gossip and backstabbing and betrayal, by making friends, often with other homeschooled kids, but not always. There’s always church, and your neighbors. My unschooled goddaughters made a list the other day of people they considered their friends, and it spanned 200 people in five states, and included my son, who now lives next door to them.
My point was a religion is pretty much chosen for a child when they are born. The parent’s raise the kid in their religion. And even with a modest religious upbringing that can have profound effects on a person. Now imagine a person who never was away from discussions of God for even a moment while in school. Where is the kids choice in this? Who is looking out for them?
I actually think a some religious upbringing of children is important. Kids should be exposed to some sort of theological education. My point through this whole thread has been that I do not think they need to be submerged in it 24/7. That there should be room for other topics sans God.
I was pressed to say what the “harm” is in teaching God on geometry. So I provided that and you think I have a different agenda. Yes it would be nice to point to a study that shows when this happens kids know nothing of geometry upon leaving the class because frankly it seems that is all you will accept as an actual harm worthy of note.
Okay, so religious instruction is all right as long as it doesn’t veer from Whack-a-Mole’s List of Approved Topics. Fair enough. Invocation to suicide bombing is off the list (and I think I’m with you there). The idea that God created the laws that govern the universe (math, physics) is also off the list. What about teaching that God inspires artistic creativity-- does that intrude into literature class? What about teaching Christian morality-- does that intrude into philosophy class? What about teaching the life of Jesus-- does that intrude into history class? What is religion class supposed to teach, if it can’t intersect with any other area of learning?
If you were only decrying a geometry class where the teacher blathers about God so much that there’s no time to actually teach geometry, I’d be right there with you. But your problem seems to be with a class that teaches geometry fully and correctly, but then, in addition, talks about God through the lens of geometry.
Not really, it’s just that you haven’t demonstrated any other type of harm it could cause, and the rest of us can’t think of any, either.
Again, I think the thing you are missing is that God creating everything is part of their theology. Even if they didn’t mention this in geometry class, they would mention it in theology class:
“Remember the geometry you learned in the previous class period? That was an example of the nature of God. There is an absolute consistency of mathematical principles and God was the inventor of that consistency. God’s nature was revealed in the order and precision you saw in the foundational concepts of geometry…etc., etc.”
It’s part of the religion, you can’t take it out, and one way or another they will get their point across about that.
We’ve been over this several times. I’ll try once more.
Teaching God in Geometry is wholly extraneous to the subject at hand. You could have absolutely zero concept of God and still be taught perfectly well to use the quadratic equation and calculate circle diameters.
I would fully expect such a school to have a class on their religion. In there if they want to rope in how geometry shows the hand of God at work fine. Great even! In fact I’d say it makes abundant sense to do just that. You get the kids to revisit their lessons in another class and view it from a different angle. I would hope the religion teachers would draw in their lessons from all their other classes…brings a sort of holistic aspect to the whole thing (not sure if such a new agey term is appropriate to that but hopefully you get what I mean).
I agree with you and am fine with that. See my previous post.
Yes, I did see that. Frankly, this is making me a little exasperated, because I don’t see the difference. And I’m not being trying to be obtuse, truly I’m not…I just don’t get the fine line you are trying to walk, I’m sorry.
Well, it’s not “necessary” anywhere if you’re not religious. If you are religious it’s “necessary” in lots of places. We specifically leave the government out of those types of decisions unless there is a compelling interest for the state to intercede. Once again let me remind you that there is no compelling interest for the state to keep God out of geometry.
No, we don’t have agents looking into public school actions because parents are likely to report abuses of the 1st amendment. But in private schools, the parents want their kids to get religious instruction. Why would they rat out the school they chose to send their kids to over a curriculum issue? It’s not like the kids are being sexually assaulted by the teachers.
Well now I’m really confused. I thought you were arguing that this kind of additional instruction would muddy their understanding of geometry. Can you respond to my post #206?
That’s because I’ve seen zero effort to even acknowledge First Amendment rights–or the rights of anyone except you, in general–as a concern.
She’s not the one making a ridiculous claim here. The burden of proof is on you.
WhyNot provided an interesting cite for state private school requirements, which seems to be missing large swaths of data. Whack-a-Mole, I, for one, will take your argument seriously if and when you research the requirements of the states with missing data there and present it as relevant in any way to the question of whether or not the government should nominate you King of the First Amendment.
One of the perks of having children is that we get to raise them in our image! (Well, and to fetch us beers.)
If you want your child to be exposed to all sorts of philosophies and cultures and “protected from religion” then bully for you. But since you’re not a parent (I assume) then your control about how other people choose to raise their kids is very, very limited. As it should be. Accept it.
You want to spare children from the evils of religion? Marvelous. Go forth and multiply and you can do that.
Forget it. I already told him that. Twice. 
As we plainly see, the state needs some oversight as well.
Here’s where this is going:
There is a certain faction (on this Board and in “real life”) who believe - firmly, and unquestionably - that teaching religion IS harmful to the children, and therefore requires that the State intervene and prevent the children from being harmed. Not that difficult a concept, but one which I vehemently oppose.
Yeah, I think I’ve mentioned it a couple of times, already, too.
Darnit, I missed the 5-minute edit window. To add:
ETA: (due to hitting ‘submit’ too soon)
This belief is as firmly ingrained for this faction, as the belief that God is in everything is to those teaching it in school. Thus, it is the end-purpose of many within this tiny sliver of a faction, to not just separate the State from God, but to use the State as a tool to extricate God from every place wherein he can be found, including private lives, if possible, since they believe that the belief in God (religion) is the root of all evil.