Religion in public schools

know1 wrote:

Ahh...let's fill it with "facts". Like the "facts" they used to teach in the schools about the earth being flat, etc. I firmly believe the "facts" of today will be disproven tomorrow.

that maybe true... but at least the evolution of theories on things like Earth being flat can adapt and change... the bible/religion cannot be like the above 'fact' as no matter how good the scientific evidence is.... its never accepted as all the 'fact' you think you need are faith and the bible...

the world isnt flat... which is why we dont learn that it is anymore... therefore its factual evidence we are teaching in classes... sure they'll disprove other facts tomorrow... the point being that we'll learn the new facts... unlike religion where the new fact cannot or will never be accepted as it defeats the purpose... so to speak.

dunkman1974 wrote:

the vast majority are also very fat... should they hand out burgers before these prayers as well.

Not sure where the relevance is in that, but I do not think too many people would oppose.

know1 wrote:

Maybe the theories of humans will continue to evolve as you describe and eventually will end up in agreement with the bible....

The point is - it's interesting that in one post you demand that "facts" be taught and then with another you acknowledge their fallibility.

i was meaning more "facts" in the factual sense

by that i mean History... actual recorded events... Biology, French, Phys Ed, Music... you know factual things... like 2 x 5 = 10... that kinda shit... not things about people turning to salt for looking back..

if you actually taught kids the uncensored version of religion they'd be fucking petrified... huge floods, famine, fire, hell, devil, talking snakes, burning bushes that speak, people who believed they were being spoken to by god attempting to kill their sons, faith-healing, angels, rivers being parted, etc....

blueandwhite wrote:

I'm glad I grew up in a more secular community. Nobody I knew ever had to put up with this sort of rubbish.

As far as I see it, religion seems to be the ultimate form of exclusion. It has absolutely no place in any publicly run institution. If one is so inclined to submerse their children in their own prejudices, then let them do so privately. To have a minister speak publicly at a highschool graduation is absurd. Can you imagine what kind of response people would have had if a Muslim Cleric or Jewish Rabbi came to the podium and started babbling about "chosen people" or other such dribble. If you believe such things, that's fine. Others don't. Those individuals pay taxes as well, and are entitled to recieve public services without descrimination.

AMEN!!!

blueandwhite wrote:

As far as I see it, religion seems to be the ultimate form of exclusion.

It's interesting to me that you think this way and then generalize to all religion. I don't think there could be a more accepting place than my church. There's a huge banner that talks about accepting ALL people and making them feel welcome.

dunkman1974 wrote:

just like dogs and other pets......

comparing religion to dogs and other pets. wow! nice touch!

Parents should be teaching their children about morality, not school teachers.

No. I think kids should be taught morals at home or other places of theri parents choosing. School is mandatory so public schools should not be a venue for teaching morals, much like it shouldn't be a venue for teaching religion. Schools are a place where kids should be putting their morals into action and then be held accountable if and when they break school rules.

know1 wrote:

Interesting. As we all know, History is highly subjective and often written from the standpoint of the victor. Therefore, factual isn't necessarily its strong suit.

In addition, much of the bible is history. Now, you may not believe those things happened, but you weren't there. Nor were you there when the history that you do accept happened....yet you believe that....?

of course History is subjective... thats what makes it so interesting is that its open for debate and isnt so linear that it cant be argued against or for... if evidence cropped up that made a significant point in history change, then at least that evidence would be studied, looked at and then the history would change according to the new evidence..

with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.


also when i meant teaching factual history... i'm talking about the 2nd world war being from 1939-1945... who fought who... what ship bombed who... what politician served what country and what leader ordered this and that... i'm talking about Queen Elizabeth I reign... its period of time... who was her political allies... what castles she lived in... what happened under her rule to other countries... etc, etc, etc...

as a book, the bible is a good indicator of history... it describes how people lived, the buildings, the trade at that time, etc etc etc........ btu as factual evidence its subjective... as are the writings of Tacitus and Herodotus... all very subjective.... i accept that, but you wont accept that things in the bible were written with a concept in mind.... you wont accept that maybe the things described didnt happen, whereas i'm open to the idea that maybe the Romans did conquer all of Scotland... history shows they didnt, but if evidence cropped up showing a fort way up in the north of Scotland... then history would be re-written...

dunkman1974 wrote:

of course History is subjective... thats what makes it so interesting is that its open for debate and isnt so linear that it cant be argued against or for... if evidence cropped up that made a significant point in history change, then at least that evidence would be studied, looked at and then the history would change according to the new evidence..

with the bible... it wouldnt matter if a parchment paper was found with Jesus' DNA on it... and a signed confession that he amde it all up and he was the first illusionist in history... you guys would still debunk it... your history is one that you'll never accept change to... thats the difference.


also when i meant teaching factual history... i'm talking about the 2nd world war being from 1939-1945... who fought who... what ship bombed who... what politician served what country and what leader ordered this and that... i'm talking about Queen Elizabeth I reign... its period of time... who was her political allies... what castles she lived in... what happened under her rule to other countries... etc, etc, etc...

as a book, the bible is a good indicator of history... it describes how people lived, the buildings, the trade at that time, etc etc etc........ btu as factual evidence its subjective... as are the writings of Tacitus and Herodotus... all very subjective.... i accept that, but you wont accept that things in the bible were written with a concept in mind.... you wont accept that maybe the things described didnt happen, whereas i'm open to the idea that maybe the Romans did conquer all of Scotland... history shows they didnt, but if evidence cropped up showing a fort way up in the north of Scotland... then history would be re-written...

You don't know what I would or would not accept.

You appear very accepting and understanding of a very highly subjective subject like history and other subjects such as science which are teaching theories that might be false tomorrow, yet you are completely close minded to religion which really isn't all that different as I've pointed out. It's quite hypocritical.