The journey from there to here

There's a push lately to remove all religious instruction from the public schools. Not only would it be a bad idea, it would require historical revisionism of monumental proportions.

For, you see, states are rightly required by their state education laws to teach state history. And in many states you cannot do that without discussing religion. A discussion of Utah history without the mention of Mormons is absolutely impossible; they were the ones who first settled the state! Likewise, most New England states originated under RELIGIOUS CHARTERS with their European sovereign states; vestiges of this heritage can be found in their state names (Pennsylvania, for instance), and in the names oftheir cities and counties.

But, going further, how do we begin to explore the civil rights movement without dissecting the teachings of a CHRISTIAN activist in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr? Or the Civil War without the contributions of the Quakers in operating the Unerground Railroad?

An entire era (the crusades) would go under the knife of political correctness, as would entire nations and empires through history (the Holy Roman Empire, anyone?). And it's not just Christianity that would feel the sting of excluding religion from history. Should we revisit the Salem Witch trials and the fact that even the legitimate practitioners of witchcraft in New England at the time should still have had rights? Or how about the Moorish influence in Spain that arguably precipitated the Crusades? The entire nation of Tibet would be gone in a flash of inoffensiveness, and many works of art would be lost to us entirely, as they were frequently inspired by, or commissioned by, the church.

If you truly feel that Christianity is an offensive evil, you won't fight it by suppressing it. You can only challenge it by allowing it on an open playing field, and dissecting its arguments, if you can.

Although I've still yet to find someone who can credibly meet THAT challenge. Which is why they focus instead on suppression.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 04, 2005

A kid reading a Bible in recess is suspended.

Please show me one instance of a child reading the bible at recess being suspended (from a credible news source). My sources tell me that not only is a child reading the bible at recess allowed, but even if the CHILD were evangelizing, it would not/could not be disallowed. The Supreme Court has CONSISTENTLY upheld the rights of prayer/study groups as long as they are led by the students, participation is not mandatory, and other religious groups are given equal access. While a few overzealous administrators have tried to squash student led groups such as these, they are rebuffed as soon as a legal challenge is issued.

One of the problems many Christians have in this country is that they do not press their rights when their rights are infringed upon...and because they fail to challenge these rulings, administrators have gotten away with continuing acts that even the Supreme Court would decree to be blatantly unConstitutional.

on Jun 04, 2005


#15 by latour999
Friday, June 03, 2005





A kid reading a Bible in recess is suspended. Students acting out scenes in the koran is encouraged.


And what fucked up school is this?



Knox County School District in Tennesee, Karns Elementary School

Link
on Jun 04, 2005
(from a credible news source).


attention drmiler. you seem to have overlooked one of the requirements. worldweeklynewsdotnet don't qualify except on those rare occasions when they spin their opinions so wildly they unintentionally manage to reach a full 180 degrees.
on Jun 04, 2005
Unfortunately, the zealots do not understand that, so that the mere mention of anything christian is bastardized into an assault on the separation of Church and state


even more unfortunately, you appear to believe your own propaganda.
on Jun 04, 2005
I tend to differ a bit. I don't think there is ever any reason for moral instruction in schools, whatsoever.

You don't have to address right and wrong when teaching facts. If a biology teacher teaches the findings of scientists that back up natural selection, there's no reason to ever deal with the 'truth' of it. Only the scientist, the theory, the findings. The 'truth' of it never enter into it.

The same with history. We can learn about any historical event without judging whether or not the 'right' thing happened. Whether it be slavery, or civil rights, or the crusades, whatever. You put forth the facts, and let the moral background of the child decide.

This is important, because when the moral values of the student's family and the teacher conflict, the teacher has no right to overcome those values. If a family has conservative beliefs, their beliefs aren't harmed by a student knowing the facts of M.L. King Jr's life. If, however, the teacher goes further and, say, makes the point that still today civil rights abuses are the norm because gay people can't marry, they've gone a step too far.

Religion is about personal values and self-expression. Teaching is about fact, NOT about subjective values and self-expression. The rights to teach that sort of thing belongs to the parents of the child.

I know of many people who think we should have moral intruction in schools. The question I always ask them is:

"What happens next year when they have a Muslim or Hindu teacher?"

They usually stare back at me as if it were an impossibility, but it isn't. Even more so, they are VERY likely to have an atheist teacher who is in no way barred from demeaning their religion in favor of secular "truth".

For that reason, NO ONE should be doing it. I can't be a hypocrite. Sorry, but if a Mosque set up in the parking lot of my kid's school and handed out pamphlets and hotdogs I would be pissed. For that reason, I don't want a Baptist hotdog stand opening the door for them.
on Jun 04, 2005
Sorry, that was long. My point in a nutshell is if we allow our accepted values to be taught, we open the door for others to teach contrary to our beliefs.

To me if a PETA-inspired teacher starts teaching about cruelty in meat processing plants, that is JUST as out-of-line as a Baptist teaching the 'truth' of creationism. I don't want a Muslim health teacher being paid to teach my kid that pork is unclean, so I don't believe someone aligned with me should open the door for it by teaching that my morals are logical or superior.

I don't want a biology teacher demeaning my beliefs while teaching evolution, so I don't think creationists should invite them to do so. These are just a few examples among many.
on Jun 04, 2005

kingbee,

Thanks for the link. I assure you, though, that the school will lose this case.

Baker,

You make some excellent points. In fact, that's why I question whether capable parents should "farm out" their childrens' education to institutional schools.

on Jun 04, 2005
#18 by kingbee
Saturday, June 04, 2005





(from a credible news source).


attention drmiler. you seem to have overlooked one of the requirements. worldweeklynewsdotnet don't qualify except on those rare occasions when they spin their opinions so wildly they unintentionally manage to reach a full 180 degrees


ATTENTION KINGBEE: Can you show me WHERE latour said credible source? Of course you CAN'T because Gideon is the one that said that. Next time pay attention.
on Jun 04, 2005
kingbee,
Thanks for the link. I assure you, though, that the school will lose this case


awww man...puhleeeze don't blame me for that link.
on Jun 04, 2005
Can you show me WHERE latour said credible source? Of course you CAN'T because Gideon is the one that said that


ooops. jeez am i embarassed now. when am i gonna learn that latour prefers non-credible sources?
on Jun 04, 2005
ooops. jeez am i embarassed now. when am i gonna learn that latour prefers non-credible sources?


Damn those credible sources! Always being correct! I hate them! That's why I only read Weekly World News!

rrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiigggghhhhttttt........
on Jun 05, 2005

#26 by kingbee
Saturday, June 04, 2005





Can you show me WHERE latour said credible source? Of course you CAN'T because Gideon is the one that said that


ooops. jeez am i embarassed now. when am i gonna learn that latour prefers non-credible sources?


See what this boils down to is...what's credible to you and the left is NOT the same as what's credible to me and the right. In other words you should stay out of the middle of a conversation unless you're specifically invited in.
on Jun 05, 2005
what's credible to you and the left is NOT the same as what's credible to me and the right. In other words you should stay out of the middle of a conversation unless you're specifically invited in.


in other words, youre the guy for whom they invented spin doctors. no wonder you have such difficulty dealing with fact.

thanks for the etiquette lesson, but i'll continue to follow your example rather than your decree.
on Jun 06, 2005

Unfortunately, the zealots do not understand that, so that the mere mention of anything christian is bastardized into an assault on the separation of Church and state


even more unfortunately, you appear to believe your own propaganda.

Prove me wrong.  Go ahead and try it.  I would love to read your proof as it would be most entertaining.

3 Pages1 2 3