Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

[Nanohedron]

I think this is a good thing. And even if such elective courses are unavailable at a given school, one can --and ought to, I think-- always educate oneself. Education does not lead perforce to conversion. I've got a rendering of the Qur'an in my bookshelf. Last I checked, I'm not a Muslim.

I agree that it's important to teach this stuff. Kids should understand where they come from and why things are what they are (as far as that can be understood). I think we should teach our kids the history of ideas, which includes the history of science (Why were people content with vague notions of the world and the body for so long, and then suddenly in the Enlightenment started measuring and dissecting everything?). It also includes religion and philosophy, both of which were indistinguishable from religion at some point in the past. I think everyone should at least once in their youth have actually read Genesis and Exodus, the story of the birth of Christ, his Passion, and esp. the sermon on the mount. That is not only the foundation of Christianity it is also the cultural bedrock of our society (for better or worse), and kids should be taught about it. The same applies to Homer, Greek myth, the Apology of Socrates, and Cicero's political writings. It certainly can't hurt to make kids read the Vishuddi Magga, a bit the Koran, Hindu creation stories, Nordic myths and Viking romances; but the judeo-Christian stuff is central in enabling our offspring to understand the world around them.

Yes, great point. If all of that were offered in these classes, it would be fabulous.

Tom

Fabulous indeed. Highly unlikely, though. School budgets can only bear so much, and choices have to be made. This is where libraries, community courses, internet research, and so on come in to the picture. It's all about one's bootstraps in the end. As to the value of that kind of activity, that's a personal issue. Sometimes just getting a job to survive puts elective education on the back shelf, unfortunately.

[Tyler]

[
The presence of a course (With prosyletizing impact) in a public school indicates that there is official sponsorship and promotion of the religion.

So having a course on religion in a public institution could be considered a prosyletizing effort?

[missy]

but, wormdiet - there's a LOT of things that are taught in public schools that I think my tax dollars shouldn't go to support. I don't think my tax dollars should go to support football teams (highschool OR pro - and in this town, they do both). Since there's nothing "Constitutional" about supplying an education to the populace, it would be hard to say it's unconstitutional to have religious views presented in a educational setting (although I'm in no way a Constitutional scholar, so could be wrong).

I honestly am not threatened by religious viewpoints different than my own being taught in schools. I also don't see how European history from about 500 CE onwards can be taught and NOT have religion brought into it. I don't see how the Aztec culture can be taught and not bring religion into it. I don't see how the founding of Plymoth Colony can be taught and not bring religion into it. I don't see how the Holocast of WWII can be taught and not bring religion into it.

As for vouchers - I have a viewpoint on those radically different than most people, and that would be another thread entirely......

[TomB]

but, wormdiet - there's a LOT of things that are taught in public schools that I think my tax dollars shouldn't go to support. I don't think my tax dollars should go to support football teams (highschool OR pro - and in this town, they do both). Since there's nothing "Constitutional" about supplying an education to the populace, it would be hard to say it's unconstitutional to have religious views presented in a educational setting (although I'm in no way a Constitutional scholar, so could be wrong).

I honestly am not threatened by religious viewpoints different than my own being taught in schools. I also don't see how European history from about 500 CE onwards can be taught and NOT have religion brought into it. I don't see how the Aztec culture can be taught and not bring religion into it. I don't see how the founding of Plymoth Colony can be taught and not bring religion into it. I don't see how the Holocast of WWII can be taught and not bring religion into it.

As for vouchers - I have a viewpoint on those radically different than most people, and that would be another thread entirely......

Missy: I completely agree with you that history cannot be taught without religion being brought into it, but that is not what they are doing. They are not teaching history, they are teaching a Bible course. Try letting a Muslin group get a class on the Koran and see what happens.

Also, did you have the chance to read the entire article. Here is a line from it.

He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.


That, is proseltyzing, in my view, on public dollars.

All the Best, Tom

[Nanohedron]

[
The presence of a course (With prosyletizing impact) in a public school indicates that there is official sponsorship and promotion of the religion.

So having a course on religion in a public institution could be considered a prosyletizing effort?

I think it's all in the delivery. If the article's info is accurate, I would prefer to see that sort of religious thrust left to church schooling, as the course does appear less educational than proselytising. Again, that's according to the article's presentation. Thing is, it's hard to separate religions from their convictions. I don't think it's impossible, though. To teach that a religion says something is different from teaching religion, but it's a fine line.

[IRTradRU?]

OK, but you were the one that said "back to the topic- education." So, here, it seems that Bloomie is correct, at least as far as this topic and Affirmative Action is concerened.

So what? Where did anyone say that it didn't and what does that have to do with the topic itself?

[TomB]

OK, but you were the one that said "back to the topic- education." So, here, it seems that Bloomie is correct, at least as far as this topic and Affirmative Action is concerened.

So what? Where did anyone say that it didn't and what does that have to do with the topic itself?

I was just poking a bit of fun at you, because you had said in an earlier post- "K, now back to our topic - education. "

Seems like when the replies came out, you then directed the topic away from education.

I guess my attempt at humor sucked. Sorry.

Tom

[IRTradRU?]

Missy: I completely agree with you that history cannot be taught without religion being brought into it, but that is not what they are doing. They are not teaching history, they are teaching a Bible course. Try letting a Muslin group get a class on the Koran and see what happens.

Some examples, please? And does this include publicly-funded universities and colleges?

[missy]

"He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document. "

I could see a view of this proposed - depending on how far back you are talking about the founding of the nation. If you are talking 1783 - of course not. But if you are theorizing (note - I stated theory, as in an idea, not a fact) that the nation's founding was actually with the first settlements at Jamestown and Plymoth (am I spelling that correctly?) then I could see someone saying the Bible may be the nation's founding document. I don't see that as prostelitizing at all. I just see it as another viewpoint.

Oh - and my sons were told metals are "hard and shiney". That the Native Americans that lived in our area pre - European contact were great farmers. The the ONLY cause of the Civil War was slavery. And so many other non-proven or outright falicies that it almost became laughable - and this wasn't on taxpayer money, but on my tuition money!

Again - it's an elective. Is an atheist going to take the class? And if they do, are they going to be seriously threatened to convert? From the article, it doesn't seem likely, on either count.

[TomB]

"He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document. "

I could see a view of this proposed - depending on how far back you are talking about the founding of the nation. If you are talking 1783 - of course not. But if you are theorizing (note - I stated theory, as in an idea, not a fact) that the nation's founding was actually with the first settlements at Jamestown and Plymoth (am I spelling that correctly?) then I could see someone saying the Bible may be the nation's founding document. I don't see that as prostelitizing at all. I just see it as another viewpoint.

Oh - and my sons were told metals are "hard and shiney". That the Native Americans that lived in our area pre - European contact were great farmers. The the ONLY cause of the Civil War was slavery. And so many other non-proven or outright falicies that it almost became laughable - and this wasn't on taxpayer money, but on my tuition money!

Again - it's an elective. Is an atheist going to take the class? And if they do, are they going to be seriously threatened to convert? From the article, it doesn't seem likely, on either count.

Yeah, your kids has lousy history and science teachers, that does suck. I thought, though, that you sent them to a Catholic School, no?

You aren't trying to seriously tell me that a course teaching the bible and that has the view that the bible should be considered the country's founding document, that they are only doing it for historical purposes, are you?

I don't care if it's an elective, when it's taught this way, it becomes government funded religion.

Tom

[missy]

oh - and with the current climate here and abroad, I think having a group teach the Koran would be a good thing - we are constantly being told we don't understand the Middle East and learning about their religious teachings would help in that.

[TomB]

Missy: I completely agree with you that history cannot be taught without religion being brought into it, but that is not what they are doing. They are not teaching history, they are teaching a Bible course. Try letting a Muslin group get a class on the Koran and see what happens.

Some examples, please? And does this include publicly-funded universities and colleges?

Can you please clarify your question(s)? I don't get what they are asking in regards to my post.

Thanks, Tom

[Bloomfield]

OK, but you were the one that said "back to the topic- education." So, here, it seems that Bloomie is correct, at least as far as this topic and Affirmative Action is concerened.

So what? Where did anyone say that it didn't and what does that have to do with the topic itself?

I was just poking a bit of fun at you, because you had said in an earlier post- "K, now back to our topic - education. "

Seems like when the replies came out, you then directed the topic away from education.

I guess my attempt at humor sucked. Sorry.

Tom

I got it, and you were spot on.

[missy]

"Yeah, your kids has lousy history and science teachers, that does suck. I thought, though, that you sent them to a Catholic School, no? "

Yes they did (youngest left in 6th grade to attend a private, gifted school, and will be attending a magnet public for 9th this year). But the majority of public school options I had were REALLY bad.
************************************
"You aren't trying to seriously tell me that a course teaching the bible and that has the view that the bible should be considered the country's founding document, that they are only doing it for historical purposes, are you?"

I haven't the faintest idea, because I haven't taken the class, or talked with any student who has. I did say I had taken a course in a state funded university that taught the Bible from a historical perspective, so I do know it has been done.

[IRTradRU?]

They are not teaching history, they are teaching a Bible course. Try letting a Muslin group get a class on the Koran and see what happens.

Some examples, please? And does this include publicly-funded universities and colleges?

Can you please clarify your question(s)? I don't get what they are asking in regards to my post.

Thanks, Tom

My question is asking for examples, vis-a-vis the class on the Koran "and see what happens".