|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:08 pm
Starlock It was either this last week or a week before that one of the major news magazines, Time, ballparked an article making the case for teaching the Bible in schools. I suggest that you read the article here to get a background on this issue before posting. The core of the argument is that the Bible, plain and simple, is a cornerstone of Western culture and to be ignorant of it is to not have a complete and full education, regardless of what your personal religious beliefs are. It is suggested to teach it in the style of a literature course and to draw a very careful distinction between teaching the Bible as literature and teaching the Bible as religion (aka, indoctrinating/prostyelizing). icon_arrow.gif Can that distinction even be made? Is it possible to have the Bible in schools without in some way indoctrinating people into the reilgion? icon_arrow.gif The broader question here is... do you agree with the idea of teaching the Bible in schools? If so, why? If not, why not? icon_arrow.gif If we're going to teach the Bible, why just the bible? Why not have a world religions survey course? icon_arrow.gif How might teaching the Bible in schools influence issues of religious tolerance?
That notion that one must intristically respect another person's beliefs because they believe them reminded me of a joke:
"I believe that the universe was created by two giant turtles who did battle with space-god"
"That view is ridiculous"
"It's my religion"
"And I respect it!"
Now, given the nature of the guild, this would be an off-colour thing to say, but it raises an interesting point. Do we have an obligation to tolerate nonsense, simply because it's religiously-worded nonsense? Not to say that any religious person deserves prosecution (surely not, we all have the right to believe in whatever it is that pleases us), but when we have a situation on our hands (and this is true), where there is a large group of people who want to infringe on our rights because it fits their religious worldview, do we have an obligation to give them enough power to be able to take those rights (many of which are constitutionally provided) away? Should personal belief in deity be allowed to affect public policy?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:20 pm
If you teach the bible, you also have to teach the hot tub religion. To be equal, you have to teach all religions which isn't possible. You can't only teach one because that would be unfair to the others. Understand what I'm saying?
Another thing is the constitution. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote it, and we should follow it now. Another view: when the nation started, there was no crupt politians. Lets trust the people that believed in the cause, okay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:54 pm
arrow Do we have an obligation to tolerate nonsense, simply because it's religiously-worded nonsense?
This paralells the issue of 'when to call bull s**t' in the Neopagan and occult communities. It is a difficult issue that probably doesn't have any right answer. A fine line must be tread between setting one's foot down and accepting people's beliefs no matter how absurd they may seem to us. More than one conflict has been begun because one side thought the other side's way of life was absurd or nonsense.
When making claims, others have no obligation to believe you. I think it's important to remember that. But it's also important that when people DO make claims, you can think it is nonsense and STILL treat them with a measure of respect and dignity. That's the real key, isn't it?
arrow Should personal belief in deity be allowed to affect public policy?
I think it does whether we want to 'allow' it or not. It just happens. If a person is truly devoted to their religion, it permeates everything they do so there is no seperating them from their religion. They have, in a democracy, as much right to be elected as someone who adheres less to a religious system. In this country though we have that 'separation of church and state' thing that throws a wrench in everything. Technically by the constitution, this question can only be answered with a no. The idea is more that we don't act like a theocracy than say personal beliefs (in deity or otherwise) can't affect public policy... or it seems that way to me anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:45 pm
Politics and Religion is kind of a touchy issue right now where I live because 1. I am Mormon. 2. I live in Utah where there are a ton OF Mormons. and 3. Mitt Romney is running for President and is a Mormon...
I don't actually know that he is who I SUPPORT, however. I am still undecided. I am usually republican, however, though too Liberal "for most Mormons" and too conservative for most others. So... yeah...
Still debating within myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:14 pm
Yikes. It's a travesty to vote for someone because they're of a certain religion. How about voting for someone who you support on the issues?
Oh, and there's the fact that, despite the fact that Romney has shoulders you could land a 747 on, there's no getting past that he's a terrible flip-flopper.
And, if nothing else, Ron Paul. A vote for the constitution is a vote for America! [/shameless plugging]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:44 am
Son of Axeman Yikes. It's a travesty to vote for someone because they're of a certain religion. How about voting for someone who you support on the issues? I think those who vote on the basis of religion aren't neccesarily doing so because of the religion itself, but that the religion is a representation of how they feel on the issues too. If someone sees the world in a way similar to you, be it the same religion or otherwise, they're more likely to agree with you on issues you care about. Maybe it's just that? I don't doubt there are those heated ones out there though who vote based on things like that on a more superficial level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:23 pm
Let us keep religion out of government, shall we? Just like our founding fathers intended.
We need a restraining order for the two. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:55 pm
Starlock Son of Axeman Yikes. It's a travesty to vote for someone because they're of a certain religion. How about voting for someone who you support on the issues? I think those who vote on the basis of religion aren't neccesarily doing so because of the religion itself, but that the religion is a representation of how they feel on the issues too. If someone sees the world in a way similar to you, be it the same religion or otherwise, they're more likely to agree with you on issues you care about. Maybe it's just that? I don't doubt there are those heated ones out there though who vote based on things like that on a more superficial level.
Well, I was referring to those who put more weight on religion than the issues. As the Senator Pat Robertson (the televangelist's daddy) once said about the Civil Rights Act: "I'd love to help the coloured, but the Bible says I can't."
A potent question to ask would be: "If I agreed with an atheist politician on most issues, and disagreed with a politician of my chosen faith, would I vote for the one I agree with?" Most here would be sensible, but not all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:35 am
Son of Axeman Starlock Son of Axeman Yikes. It's a travesty to vote for someone because they're of a certain religion. How about voting for someone who you support on the issues? I think those who vote on the basis of religion aren't neccesarily doing so because of the religion itself, but that the religion is a representation of how they feel on the issues too. If someone sees the world in a way similar to you, be it the same religion or otherwise, they're more likely to agree with you on issues you care about. Maybe it's just that? I don't doubt there are those heated ones out there though who vote based on things like that on a more superficial level.
Well, I was referring to those who put more weight on religion than the issues. As the Senator Pat Robertson (the televangelist's daddy) once said about the Civil Rights Act: "I'd love to help the coloured, but the Bible says I can't."
A potent question to ask would be: "If I agreed with an atheist politician on most issues, and disagreed with a politician of my chosen faith, would I vote for the one I agree with?" Most here would be sensible, but not all.I see. One would have to be pretty hardcore to go that route, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:24 pm
It seems as though we're getting a little of topic here.
Can that distinction even be made?
arrow Yes I believe it can. You just have to be careful about how it's taught. After all history teachers are able to teach us about the book of the dead (the closest thing Egyptians had to the bible) without making us feel like we're being proselytized. Why can't the same be done with the bible? With all holy texts?
Do you agree?
arrow There are already some schools (mine included) that offer a bible as literature class if that's what you mean. If your talking about high school level than I think it should be an elective course. But that other elective courses should be offered for other religions with a required intro course to the major and most influential religions of the world.
Should other religions be included?
arrow Most definitely. I do think that there should be a required course that gives a basic introduction to all the major world religions as well as the more well known minor ones. Why? I think it would be a great help to the cause of religious tolerance. One of the main reasons extremists look down on other religions is due to lack of knowledge about other religions. If people are given an introductory course to some of the major religions especially at a younger age I think that they would be less likely to be hostile toward them. It would also help more young people realize that they do have a choice when it comes to religion. More than that religion is a major part of history so if you were to leave it out entirely then you would also have to take out all the classes on native Americans, Mesoamericans, Christian Europe, and much more. Why, because in those cultures their religion was completely ingrained in their society so much so that you could not separate one from the other. So you would not be able to teach someone about the people without teaching them about the religion of those people and vice versa.. One person mentioned that if you teach one religion you should teach all and that just isn't possible. Well I have this in response. We can't teach the history of every civilization. There have been far too many to be able to fit them into a curriculum and there would be no way to know that you had covered them all. Should we leave out every history class just because we can't teach ALL history? The same could be said about philosophy, science, mathematics, and any other subject taught in schools. Now to solve this problem curriculums have been created that teach the "highlights", those parts which are the most influential and the most fundamental. And people understand that if they want to learn more beyond what is taught in the classroom they can research it themselves. Why couldn't we do the same for religion? Teach about those religions which had/have the most impact and the most influence on history/modern times. Religion has a huge impact on the world an it's history but many know little beyond the religion they themselves adhere to. To teach them about other religions would help them understand more about the world around them and why people act and think the way they do.
How would it influence religious tolerance?
arrow As stated earlier I think it would help as it would allow people to have a greater knowledge and understanding of major religions, to realize that they do have a choice in religion and that following a different religion does not make you evil or foolish. it would also help people to have a greater understanding of the world around them, both past and present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
