• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible reading: Compulsory in schools

Zadok

Zadok
The difference between teaching kids about religion and teaching kids religion is huge. Teaching kids about religion is important. Teaching kids religion is wrong.

....

I am very puzzled - how on earth can someone be taught about religion without being taught religion? Let me put this another way how can someone be taught about math with being taught math? Where do arguments like this come from???

Zadok
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I am very puzzled - how on earth can someone be taught about religion without being taught religion? Let me put this another way how can someone be taught about math with being taught math? Where do arguments like this come from???

Zadok
I get it. He means education, as opposed to indoctrination.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Forcing children to learn as part of education is a straw man argument. Children are not "forced" to learn anything - including reading, writing, and math.

Zadok
I think you are the one with the strawman.

If you make something a part of the school curriculum, then that means that kids will be tested upon it, which means it will be a part of their GPA. If a kid wants to be a good student and cares about his or her education/career prospects past highschool, then yes, you are essentially forcing kids to learn one exclusive religious scripture.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I think you are the one with the strawman.

If you make something a part of the school curriculum, then that means that kids will be tested upon it, which means it will be a part of their GPA. If a kid wants to be a good student and cares about his or her education/career prospects past highschool, then yes, you are essentially forcing kids to learn one exclusive religious scripture.
Why does it have to be "one exclusive" anything?
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
Until the churches exposed the pedophile priests/pastors/teachers that they have cover up, let the law deal with these criminals with arrests, prosecution and convictions, then I would trust a single one of them in the public schools.

Let us apply that to all people Christians are no more likely to do it than anyone else. Get off your high horse. The fact is it is only news worthy when the liberal media can make Christians look bad. LOOK AT THE CURRENT SLAVE TRADE IN AFRICA. The majority are children (a lot of boys) many being raped and sodomized by Arabic men! some Muslim (bought for this purpose). Does that mean you condemn them also? I condemn no faith because of the acts of a few.

Do you hear about that on the news? NO! Google it it is not news worthy.
 
Last edited:

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
In today's world I cannot understand why any parent of any religion would not want their children well versed in the Koran; among other things.

I have, and will, see to the religious education of my children. Religious studies, like pot and keg-stands, belong in college.

It is my personal belief that terrorist are not borne of intelligent understanding but out of ignorance.
As is Intelligent Design, Young Earth, bigotry....
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
I have, and will, see to the religious education of my children. Religious studies, like pot and keg-stands, belong in college.
You might have a leg to stand on if everybody made it that far.

As is Intelligent Design, Young Earth, bigotry....
So your solution is to reserve knowledge for the affluent?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
storm said:
I assume you hold the same stance regarding parents.

The big difference is that the church organisation is not hiding them, but they are actively hiding the pedophiles in these rogue teachers/priests. Do the church expose them, unless the public know about them from the media?

Take the case with Ireland. The Vatican know all about these scandals, but instead of handing them over to the police, they cover it up. The Anglican churches are no better in Australia.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
The big difference is that the church organisation is not hiding them, but they are actively hiding the pedophiles in these rogue teachers/priests.
The church protects its priests, spouses protect one another. I fail to see a difference.

Also, see above re: using vitims as political footballs.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
Storm

I am sorry if I offended but I have many close female and a couple of male friends that were abused and none by a practicing (or otherwise) christian. I just feel like this was an attack on Christianity. I will defend.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
You might have a leg to stand on if everybody made it that far.


So your solution is to reserve knowledge for the affluent?


I am not affluent, are you? Yet we both seem to have acquired quite a bit of knowledge.:D

And actually, while we are talking education, I think college should be available to all who are academically qualified, without having to worry about coming up with 50 thousand a year.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Storm

I am sorry if I offended but I have many close female and a couple of male friends that were abused and none by a practicing (or otherwise) christian. I just feel like this was an attack on Christianity. I will defend.
I don't blame you for being defensive, it's a dirty tactic.

I am not affluent, are you? Yet we both seem to have acquired quite a bit of knowledge.:D
We have the passion to pursue it.

And actually, while we are talking education, I think college should be available to all who are academically qualified, without having to worry about coming up with 50 thousand a year.
Hear, hear!

But I still think everyone should know the basics, which means high school, at least.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
I think college should be available to all who are academically qualified, without having to worry about coming up with 50 thousand a year.

Keep dreaming!!! there is a segment of the community that will always pay even though they have no more than the guy going on the taxpayers bill.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
But I still think everyone should know the basics, which means high school, at least.

OK, I can go with a Religious Studies class for Juniors and Seniors in high school. Involving studies of all major religions, with a optional class for studies in the diverse minor religions. (With strict oversight of course).
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Why does it have to be "one exclusive" anything?
Because that's what's being proposed in the OP?

I would have no problem with an optional world religions class in highschool. Personally, I feel an intro to philosophy or logic class should be mandatory.

But back to the religions class. I could see the interest in having a world religions class. Religion is, afterall, a very potent force in our world. A class like this could help young people understand where others are coming from, and cultivate an interest and appreciation for other cultures. However, what is the argument for making such a class mandatory? It seems to fall squarely in the category of such classes that are optional. It would be like making a "art through the ages" or "music from around the world" class mandatory.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, I can go with a Religious Studies class for Juniors and Seniors in high school. Involving studies of all major religions, with a optional class for studies in the diverse minor religions. (With strict oversight of course).
Sounds good.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Keep dreaming!!! there is a segment of the community that will always pay even though they have no more than the guy going on the taxpayers bill.
The ability to pay should not restrict the academically qualified from receiving a quality education.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Because that's what's being proposed in the OP?
Right, sorry. Conversation drifted, due in no small part to me. :eek:

I would have no problem with an optional world religions class in highschool. Personally, I feel an intro to philosophy or logic class should be mandatory.
I'd support this, too.

However, what is the argument for making such a class mandatory? It seems to fall squarely in the category of such classes that are optional. It would be like making a "art through the ages" or "music from around the world" class mandatory.
Review the thread. :)
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
The ability to pay should not restrict the academically qualified from receiving a quality education.

I fully agree but until people realize a lot of things and get away from the rampant materialism that is destroying the world it is only a dream.
 
Top