Religion in Education

[evulish]

Originally Posted by Raven_Writer

But for religion to be in public schools, don't you think it should be of every religion, and not just certain types?

What does Adam & Eve, Satan, etc... have anything to do with on the topic of math though? No matter how you look at it, it would require knowledge of that religion, and if it was a question that was required to be answered (as in the second case), it shouldn't be allowed.

Like Wetzel said, the Bible is the best-selling book. Most people have heard of or know the story of Adam & Eve. You don't need to believe the religion to understand what the book said. How is it any different than asking "Who is the most famous Shakespearean couple?"

Maybe you can ask your teacher to add books to the curriculum if you want some literature about different religions (I think that religions should be taught not preached in schools) (these are all for different grades and reading levels)
The Fountainhead (Atheism)
Night by Elie Wiesel (Judaism)
Nectar in a Sieve (Hinduism)
Ali and Nino (Islamic)

[Raven_Writer]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

maybe if you told us what the question actually was, we might better understand your concerns.

The question is just simply, do you think that religion should be brought into education (given the examples I gave).

The US constitution says congress shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of religion

it does not say we shall have separation of church and state

and it does not say we shall have freedom from religion, as if religion were something to be shunned or avoided.

but some people would have us think that is the case.

Nowhere in the constitution does it contain anything relating to "seperation between church and state", correct. I've had this told to me over and over again...the seperation came with the establish and free exercise clauses.

The religious beliefs of the people in our nation and our world have a great deal to do with our history and culture. If you get upset everytime God or church or the bible is mentioned in school, maybe you need to figure out why its upsetting you?

I don't get upset everytime this happens...I get upset when there's only one side of the story.

If you have been led to believe that all references to religion or God are forbidden within the walls of public schools, you have been given incorrect information. If that is the way you thought it was suppose to be, then I would understand you being upset - thinking the teachers are breaking the rules

but from what you have told us so far, they are not breaking any rules.

Maybe you could be more specific if we are not seeing the whole picture.

Actually, I've been led to believe the opposite, but in my own view of education, religion should not be brought into discussion when it's not actually necessary because it is always a one-sided way of thinking, without any thought of other religions.

BTW, when you said you didnt read the book, were you referring to C&P or the Bible?

I was referring to C&P, the only way I did read it is by SparkNotes, and I didn't even read most of those. I've read a little bit of the bible, the rest I've learned through Christians.

Originally Posted by evulish

Like Wetzel said, the Bible is the best-selling book. Most people have heard of or know the story of Adam & Eve. You don't need to believe the religion to understand what the book said. How is it any different than asking "Who is the most famous Shakespearean couple?"

Yes, the Christian Bible is the best-selling book. I don't think you need to believe the religion either, but to ask who was the first couple on Earth is a bit unfair in a way, because not every religion believes that A&E were. Demonology says that Adam & Lilith (sp?) were, until Lilith betrayed Adam (and more to it...).

Anyone can argue the most famous Shakespearean couple also...it all depends on what you want to believe.

Originally Posted by evulish

Maybe you can ask your teacher to add books to the curriculum if you want some literature about different religions (I think that religions should be taught not preached in schools) (these are all for different grades and reading levels)
The Fountainhead (Atheism)
Night by Elie Wiesel (Judaism)
Nectar in a Sieve (Hinduism)
Ali and Nino (Islamic)

If I had any hope of that being possible, I would. But for two reasons it wouldn't work:

1) It's AP English...and she only follows that cirriculum, and nothing else.
2) The school board has to approve the material (to the best of my knowledge), and the rest of the English department. And since everyone is Christian on the board, they wouldn't allow Atheism or Islamic books to be brought in (nothing against Christians, just the school board since they are like that). Also, I know for the Islamic book, it'll just get destroyed (my high school is very racist).

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

With all due respect to you involved, this is turning into an argument over who is right and who is wrong, rather than the open discussion it was intended to be.

It seems that a lot of the reasons aren't explained well, or maybe I just missed something. I agree with a few of you that religion is a part of history, but I have a fear that the change in curriculum would be misrespresented in our current school systems. I know for a fact that there are teachers I wouldn't want to learn about various religions from simply because of bias.

A new curriculum may include books that cite information about various faiths, but on the same track, how will it change understanding and tolerance and make the idea welcome? The truth with religion in public schools is that no matter which way you choose to represent religion, there will be a huge amount of dissent from any party.

In my opinion, it is changing that dissent into acceptance on the family's part that is important, but a school cannot just change a family. It's possible, but hardly feasible. While such changes in curriculum are the ideal, I have a feeling that RavenWriter, among others, are looking for a more immediate and usable solution to the issue of religious education.

Thanks,
Genia

[Raven_Writer]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov

With all due respect to you involved, this is turning into an argument over who is right and who is wrong, rather than the open discussion it was intended to be.

Well, atleast someone else is trying to keep this on the right track...thanks.

It seems that a lot of the reasons aren't explained well, or maybe I just missed something. I agree with a few of you that religion is a part of history, but I have a fear that the change in curriculum would be misrespresented in our current school systems. I know for a fact that there are teachers I wouldn't want to learn about various religions from simply because of bias.

Well, it is known for a fact that most historical events have happened because of history. I do agree that a change would be misrepresented, and that there are biased teachers when it comes to religion (my AP Gov. teacher is one). I think this is where the main problem lies.

A new curriculum may include books that cite information about various faiths, but on the same track, how will it change understanding and tolerance and make the idea welcome? The truth with religion in public schools is that no matter which way you choose to represent religion, there will be a huge amount of dissent from any party.

Really, if you think about it, if you actually wanted to learn about another religion...it'd be wiser to do it on your own instead of through the school. The school will always try to please the majority (which is usually of Christian decent), so then that means that Athiests would have to sit through a class that they believe they shouldn't be in, but are required to in order to graduate (assuming it goes this way...don't make any remarks on this situation).

In my opinion, it is changing that dissent into acceptance on the family's part that is important, but a school cannot just change a family. It's possible, but hardly feasible. While such changes in curriculum are the ideal, I have a feeling that RavenWriter, among others, are looking for a more immediate and usable solution to the issue of religious education.

Thanks,
Genia

This pretty much sums up what I haven't been able to say honestly.

Please, in respect to this thread, lets stay on track and not turn this into a "I'm-right-your-wrong" thread as Genia pointed out. I think that this can be a very useful thread if the discussion is right.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Raven_Writer

Please, in respect to this thread, lets stay on track and not turn this into a "I'm-right-your-wrong" thread as Genia pointed out. I think that this can be a very useful thread if the discussion is right.

You asked us to share our opinion if this is right. The only example you gave with any real information was about Crime and Punishment, so that was the one I addressed. As far as drawing comparisons between Satenism and Crime and Punishment, I'm rather interested in how Satenism has an impact upon the book.

Originally Posted by Raven_Writer

What does Adam & Eve, Satan, etc... have anything to do with on the topic of math though? No matter how you look at it, it would require knowledge of that religion.

I'll second Kens call for more information regarding the math question. I get asked questions all the time about subjects that I've only heard about in passing. Logging, tennis, invoices, and many other things. The point about them is that they merely serve to illustrate the use of a math concept. The same goes for my Biology classes, and my current teacher LOVES those types of questions.

It the question required an intimate knowledge of Genesis, then it is likely an unfair question. If it is just a vehicle for a concept, then no problem.

Originally Posted by Raven_Writer

there are biased teachers when it comes to religion

Do you think there are unbiased teachers when it comes to anything? By the very nature of individuality, each individual has an inherent and undeniable bias towards everything. Some people have large and obvious biases, others have theirs hidden, but everyone has them.


It is also my opinion that you should not entrust your personal growth and learning to anyone else. Learn in school, learn from others, but also learn on your own. Read varied sources on different things. Love to learn and you will go far.

Wetzel

[Raven_Writer]

I'm guessing that the "who's right" isn't going to end...I respect everyone's views on this, but lets just not try to change the views...

And in response to Wetzel:

Originally Posted by Wetzel

You asked us to share our opinion if this is right. The only example you gave with any real information was about Crime and Punishment, so that was the one I addressed. As far as drawing comparisons between Satenism and Crime and Punishment, I'm rather interested in how Satenism has an impact upon the book.

I did ask to share your opinion, but the thread became a war basically between our own view points...which is what I didn't want to happen.

Satanism didn't have an impact on the book, and I never claimed it did...I just said there's ressemblences (sp?) between Satanism & C&P.

I'll second Kens call for more information regarding the math question. I get asked questions all the time about subjects that I've only heard about in passing. Logging, tennis, invoices, and many other things. The point about them is that they merely serve to illustrate the use of a math concept. The same goes for my Biology classes, and my current teacher LOVES those types of questions.

I cannot give any more information about the math problem, since I did not take the test or anything...it's just what my friend told me (I do remember the question very vaguely though...since I had that same class last year).

You probably aren't very strong in supporting a seperation between those and math, biology, or any other classes. I am, however, that way.

Do you think there are unbiased teachers when it comes to anything? By the very nature of individuality, each individual has an inherent and undeniable bias towards everything. Some people have large and obvious biases, others have theirs hidden, but everyone has them.

No, I don't think there's ever a completely unbiased teacher. And I agree with you, everyone is biased in some matter.

It is also my opinion that you should not entrust your personal growth and learning to anyone else. Learn in school, learn from others, but also learn on your own. Read varied sources on different things. Love to learn and you will go far.

I entrust the growth of my knowledge to certain few...the rest I obtain on my own free will.

** If anyone wishes to continue this discussion anymore, please PM me...I really wish to keep this more on track and keep it's origional intentions **

[Katy]

In my AP English class, we're reading "Crime and Punishment" (Part I to be exact). During class, my teacher started bringing up a lot of references to Christianity. After about 20 minutes of listening to all these references, I asked the teacher to politely stop doing it (by raising my hand and whatnot). When I asked this, the teacher got a major attitude with me and this, and told me no, because of a bunch of reasons (I kind of tuned her out after she got an attitude).

Alright well honestly for starters I doubt any of us have the ability to change any sort of curriculum mid-class. On the practical point what would the teacher do even if she did want to stop? End class? Make up a new lesson plan on the spot? She probably got partly mad because that is an awfully difficult request. I also think personally that it is a bit tactless to argue something does not exist or is not a major part of book when you haven't read the book.

I am guessing...and I will freely admit the word guessing here...that the matches between the Satanic bible and Crime and Punishment can be attributed to the idea that the Satanic Bible probably has many references to the Christian Bible. Reactionary books have a lot in common with the things they react to. Sounds like a fascinating idea though...books/movies with Christian influences viewed through the Satanic Bible....*throws The Scarlet Letter, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of The Rings, The Once and Future King and several other stacks of books in* If that was a class I would so take it.

For your math thing I do not quite understand how that got in there but really I do not understand an awful lot of that story. Skipping that to the computer class...I think it is probably unfair to name the rest of the class "ignorant" if the entire goal of this is a flameless friendly thoughtful conversation.

and to no suprise she lost (the people in class are rather ignorant and such....

It would have been nice if it had said "in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic traditions" but I really think there is not much to argue against unless you wrote down "I believe in evolution" or two names according to another religion and your teacher marked it wrong. I think that freedom of religion allows people to write whatever they like in that space and just keeps a teacher from marking it as wrong...as a side note a rather dumb question or a freebie however you like to look at it. You do probably have to answer the question though according to your knowledge of the world...blank spaces are always blank spaces and I can't see how you could get credit for that. I have to ask how that came up in computer science class though.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Raven_Writer

In her computer class, she had to do this worksheet for her daily assignment. One part of the worksheet said "Who were the first couple on Earth?" After reading this, she stood up & fought with the teacher because she (and I) feel that it shouldn't of been put on the worksheet...and to no suprise she lost (the people in class are rather ignorant and such...so she just kind of didn't do it instead).

What is it about people defending their conviction and religious beliefs that makes them ignorant? I'm just curious.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by Raven_Writer

"In YOUR OPINION, is this right...".

Another story (happened to my friend):
In math class, she was taking a test, one with an extra credit question. When she got to the question, it said something about the famous satan/apple/adam/eve incident.

One last story (also happened to my friend):
In her computer class, she had to do this worksheet for her daily assignment. One part of the worksheet said "Who were the first couple on Earth?"

Please do keep in mind that I'm not asking what your religion is, I'm just asking if you think that brining religion into material in discussion is a justified thing to do.

As you say, Adam/Eve is a "famous...incident." There is a concept called "cultural literacy," which suggests that there is a body of cultural knowledge that "everyone" in a given culture knows. Adam & Eve, Noah & The Flood, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount ("And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise") are all widely known portions of the Bible. They are NOT obscure, but appear frequently in art, literature, folk art, drama, and music, throughout centuries of Western culture.

Culture literacy also includes many of the popular sayings, such as "God helps those who help themselves" and "A penny saved is a penny earned" from Poor Richard's Almanac, numerous quotes from Shakespeare, Mother Goose nursery rhymes, fairy tales, songs, legends (George Washington and the cherry tree), etc.

All of these kinds of things used to permeate our society, and forever influenced the English language, but the persistent efforts of various radical people to expunge them from public schools and from TV shows have caused many people to be completely ignorant of them, or at least of the origin of many traditional sayings. Or else the sayings are parodied to such an extent that many people only know the wrong version (Bumper sticker: "Do unto others, then split"). In place of the old wisdom, our modern culture has substituted a fragmented collection of movie trivia, sports stats, and other junk that has nothing to do with shaping a person into someone who can make valuable, lasting contributions to society.

As a reaction, other people have published works such as "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" (not sure of exact title), and the "Wee Sing" children's tapes. The problem here is, who can say for certain what should be included in a list of what "culturally literate" people know? It's hardly an exact science!

Now, a teacher has to assume that the students know SOMETHING about the culture. And it's a common technique for textbooks to throw in all kinds of references to other fields, because the textbook writers are trying to make the subject interesting to students with varying interests. A math textbook will have problems about sports, music, animals, cars, etc. An English textbook may have examples from literature and articles relating to history, science, and art.

Why, then, is there so much pressure from a few people to completely eliminate religion as a topic fit for inclusion in the public schools? Why not ban references to art because some people are ignorant about it, or hate it? Why not ban math, because some students are no good at it, and hate it, and feel like their teacher has elevated it to the level of a religion? (Math was Mark Leon's "mantra" at the Sacramento Regional, for those of you who weren't there to see our fabulous MC. )

On the lighter side, I have a story about the pitfalls of the "every schoolboy knows" assumption. This may shock some of you Detroit area people...

A couple years ago, one of my son's textbooks put a question which I felt was unfair. I think the subject was math. The question presumed the student knew what the Big Three automakers are. Now, with all the new models coming out of Detroit every year, how is anyone supposed to remember what the Big Three are? Ford is one, of course--every schoolboy knows that--but is Chevrolet a label of Plymouth, or its own company? Is Buick one of the Big Three? Must be, 'cause my granddad always drove a Buick. I know American Motors got eaten up by another company--was it Jeep?--and AM used to make Ramblers (I know, because my family used to own one--now there's a topic that should be banned from classrooms, the way my dad hated that car!). And where can you look up this information? I'm afraid I wasn't much help to my son in this case.

I was so annoyed by this question that I complained to the publisher.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Eric,
I am encouraged that a student felt the need for a call to action. However, by attempting to stop the lesson, you may have missed the idea the teacher was trying to establish. This idea may have been flawed but you didn't give her a chance to establish the idea and then you would be in a better position to make up your own mind. In my experience, teachers (and people in general) feel a need to establish a line from a starting point to the point they are trying to make. It seems like Lit and religion teachers carried this to an extreme, in my mind. Unfortunately, Lit and religion are not sciences with proven facts and theorems so it is hard to establish right and wrong.
Although this has been a discussion of Christianity we must remember that the religion of Russia at the time this book was written was a hotly contested and individual struggle. Not only was the populace severely divided by class but each person struggled with the obvious inhumanity perpetrated by supposedly Christian people on the lower classes and non Christians. We also must remember that the Christianity of Russia is Orthodox and for centuries this sect was at odds with the Roman Catholic Church. This struggle resulted in millions of deaths over the centuries as people defended to the death, the right way to perform the Sign of the Cross. While Dostoevsky may have been talking of religion, you must remember that he was under scrutiny as was any writer of his time. While he struggled to do something he wanted to do, he walked a narrow line that might have got him jailed or worse. With that knowledge, the book may written with the ever present conflict of trying to say what he felt while trying staying alive.
As to your other examples, the facts are still a little too sketchy. I had a calc teacher who would give "are you here?" quizzes at his 8:00AM class. It didn't matter whether you knew what color George Washington's white horse was, as much as you were present to answer the question. The math teacher may have been trying to see who was aware of all of the questions and not trying to establish a religious link.
I feel I was lucky (blessed?!?) that my parents sent me to progressive parochial schools. One of my classes (in high school) was an investigation into the world's major religions. It is pretty interesting that they share many common ideas and stories. With a few twists and different characters, they have similar tales of Genesis, the great flood, etc. They also expound on the idea of love of neighbor. None of these beliefs preach anything about harsh treatment of the non-believers yet the major struggles and wars through the ages used religion as a basis for the initial attacks. Think of where the human race would be now had the religious leaders of those conflicts been more aware and tolerant of other religions and cultures.
FIRST is breaking down those cultural and religious boundaries. Can you imagine what will take place when Israeli and Muslim teams come together for a competition? A place where Gracious Professionalism is followed and there is a free exchange of ideas can only be good for the future of those students and mentors. I hope I can live to see a day when these fences fall.

[Adam Y.]

Do you think there are unbiased teachers when it comes to anything? By the very nature of individuality, each individual has an inherent and undeniable bias towards everything. Some people have large and obvious biases, others have theirs hidden, but everyone has them.

Heh.... I found this article about robotics which oddly says the differnces in American robotics research and Japense robotics research is caused by the differnce in religions.
Robotics

And where can you look up this information? I'm afraid I wasn't much help to my son in this case.

Pssss... Wikipedia. It has Big Two,three, four, five and six.

[KenWittlief]

something I have seen growing over the last several years, many people are talking about religious tolerance, when the rest of the conversation clearly shows what they really want is religious acceptance.

There are many commonalities between religions, on the most basic level everyone teaches we should be "good".

There are also many differences. There is a real trend lately for people to try to blend all the major religions together, and call this tolerance.

On the core level, you cannot accept the teachings of different relgions, because they are different. Tolerance means "I respect your decision to follow your personal beliefs". It does not mean I agree with your beliefs or accept them as valid. In other words, I respect your freedom to make a wrong choice (from my perspective).

To me, tolerance means both sides are allowed to state their beliefs, to explain what they believe and why, and the individuals are free to choose their own path. At some point you must respect the other persons choice, and treat them with respect and dignity.

That does not mean we must pretend the differences do not exist. It means we can peacefully co-exists, even if you think the other person has made an error in their thinking.

In the end we are all individually accountable for the decisions we have made. No one is going to be held responsible because someone else chose the wrong path.

[IMDWalrus]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

What is it about people defending their conviction and religious beliefs that makes them ignorant? I'm just curious.

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but the impression I got from that post was that the ignorance in question was the majority in the class either not listening to or not respecting her beliefs.

[JakeGallagher]

<rant>
In my own opinion, I believe that religion should be taught from a historical standpoint only. Humanity throughout the ages has relied on religion to explain anything that they couldn't. However, if one religion's beliefs and stories are taught for the history concepts, ALL religions' stories, concepts, and beliefs related to the subject must also be explained.
For example, to understand the conflicting views between certain Muslim extremists and Christianity (sorry for being so general, but the west, and America aren't the only oppositions to the extremists), a teacher would have to explain the concepts that the Crusades were based on. Not only from a Christian standpoint, but also the Muslim standpoint as well.
As for the AP English teacher, she did overreact, but from what I've read, most of the AP English test is on western literature. In my class, we've read a lot of different western texts, from The Odyssey to Inferno. Right now we're finishing up some work on James Joyce and moving into Crime and Punishment. The Christio-centric views of most of these writers are unavoidable, as in the middle ages and later, Europe's literature was written mainly by the educated people, and for the most part...those were people educated by the Church.
To cut it short, religion in any schooling is unavoidable. The way it is shown, however can be changed. If religion is to be taught about, it shouldn't be based on ONE religion, unless there are no other religions in question. If this is the case, (and in every other case) the material should be taught in the most objective way possible, from an open minded platform, with no religious biases in the explaination of stories (ex: telling someone that they are wrong for suggesting that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, that homo habilis were, etc.).
</rant>
MHO.

<edit>
In years past, people were taught not to "tolerate" other religions and views, but to accept them. Tolerance is another word for absent minded acceptance.
The Nazi party in the 1930s was tolerated by the world community, and look what that lead to. No one would dare accept what they were doing, but no one would do anything about it because they were tolerating the actions for fear of a harsh repremand from the powerful German army.
Acceptance, however is a much more powerful weapon than tolerance. Acceptance is allowing people's views to be expressed in the fullest way possible.
Before anyone tries to misquote me about that, understand that when I say to allow the other person's view to be expressed, I'm not just talking about the religious view, I'm also talking about the counter to this view.
Think about what I've said.
</edit>

[KenWittlief]

It would be easy to get lost here in the definition of the words 'tolerance' and 'acceptance'.

I only intended to point out that people often say one when they mean the other.

After the attacks on sept 11, the president and others went on national TV pleading for religious tolerance (by americans towards american muslims) and at the same time they repeatedly stated that Islam is a religion of peace.

If we are suppose to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, then it doenst matter if their beliefs are peacefull, good, positive... From my way of looking at it, we tolerate people when we dont agree with them, when we are at odds with them

if there is no conflict or controversy, then tolerance is not required, because there is no issue there.

Im not sure I understand your example of WW2 and Germany. As soon as Germany invaded Poland, a full scale war was waged, most nations took sides and did everything they could to win the conflict.

And I dont think anyone knew what was really happening to the jewish people inside the borders controlled by Germany. Its not that anyone tolerated or accepted what they were doing, it was done in secret.

When american troops stumbled across the concentrations camps (my father was in Pattons 3rd army) they were in shock. They had no idea those things were going on until they started finding the camps.

going back to the topic of this thread, it seems like at least some of the examples given by RavenWriter, the student in the class would not tolerate religion even being discussed, or used in any context on test questions.