Brain Storming for our Secular School Curriculum

[Tomef]

No religion allowed, nor aspect of religious involvement in our curriculum from K to 12.

Mathematics
Language

Emphasis on: Law, Civics, and History, but only if it does not involve religion

Biology
Science/physics/Astro physics

We also need something adequate for food and health benefits/dietary learning

Physical Education will need to be parent approved.

Literature will need to be limited to only fact oriented and non-religious subjects

Keep theology at home (All of of it).

Why not comparative religion, as a secular subject? One of the problems with religion is that believers think their particular set of beliefs are ‘special’. Comparative studies could help kids see that all religions were created by people, with similar preoccupations and ideas.

 

[PureX]

Only idiots think religion is the problem. And we shouldn't be letting idiots determine our school curriculum.

Religion is just religion. Politics is just politics. Science is just science. And commerce is just commerce. These forms of human interaction become a problem for us when the humans engaging in them are doing so with selfish, destructive, intention. And it s these selfish destructive intentions that are the problem, and that we need our educational systems to somehow address and mitigate.

 

[Balthazzar]

Why not comparative religion, as a secular subject? One of the problems with religion is that believers think their particular set of beliefs are ‘special’. Comparative studies could help kids see that all religions were created by people, with similar preoccupations and ideas.

I agree, but not in our schools unless it's a voluntary enrollment and the academics are comparable and can effectively demonstrate compatibility.

 

[Tomef]

I agree, but not in our schools unless it's a voluntary enrollment and the academics are comparable and can effectively demonstrate compatibility.

Ideally I think demonstrating compatibility wouldn’t be the aim, rather teaching from a historical perspective how religions develop, where ideas overlap, how later religions draw on earlier ones (etc.), but that would probably upset too many parents already indoctrinated into their own brands of religion.

 

[Balthazzar]

Ideally I think demonstrating compatibility wouldn’t be the aim, rather teaching from a historical perspective how religions develop, where ideas overlap, how later religions draw on earlier ones (etc.), but that would probably upset too many parents already indoctrinated into their own brands of religion.

Historically speaking, religious people tend to pit themselves against other types of religious people. There's been a Dewalt is better than Kobalt type of dynamic in play across the religious spectrum. I'm ok without the hostilities. I prefer connecting dots, but I guess it's true that some things will never fit into another type of structure no matter how much we might want them to. Comparison and compatibility has been my aim for some time now, but people are often enough hostile against those who choose a different brand to realize that it might be best to keep each entity separated, as opposed to merging multiples into a larger Cooperative. No, I wouldn't teach religion in schools. World government? Yes. Politics? Yes. Sociology? Yes. Cultural diversity? Yeah, umm ... I don't know ... That's another compartmentalized touchy subject with just as many hostilities present as religion.

Maybe it best to just get in our own lanes and be. It's not my job to knock down your bowling pins from my side of the gutter.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why not comparative religion, as a secular subject? One of the problems with religion is that believers think their particular set of beliefs are ‘special’. Comparative studies could help kids see that all religions were created by people, with similar preoccupations and ideas.

It's one of those things that sounds good on paper , but I don't think it's going to be very effective given the passion people have about their own particular religion being "it" and "it" alone.

It's like putting Becky Fisher from Jesus Camp into a comparative religious class and looking at how she would handle it.

 

[PureX]

We don't need to add or subtract religion from our educational curriculum any more then we need to add or subtract science, civics, or economics. What we need to be doing is adding social ETHICS to the curriculum in a big way. Focusing especially on the logic behind social ethical decision-making. Because once our young people have a good understanding of this, they will be able to apply it to religion, science, politics, and commerce alike. And since it is our ethical ignorance and irrationality that is causing these mediums of human engagement to become so toxic and counterproductive we would finally be addressing the real problem, and not blaming the areas of engagement that the problems are happening in.

 

[Audie]

Why not comparative religion, as a secular subject? One of the problems with religion is that believers think their particular set of beliefs are ‘special’. Comparative studies could help kids see that all religions were created by people, with similar preoccupations and ideas.

Well...one reason is that the kids are not even
learning to read.

 

[Audie]

It's one of those things that sounds good on paper , but I don't think it's going to be very effective given the passion people have about their own particular religion being "it" and "it" alone.

It's like putting Becky Fisher from Jesus Camp into a comparative religious class and looking at how she would handle it.

An epiphany?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Only idiots think religion is the problem.

Correction: Only idiots think religion is the only or even main problem. But those who think religion is not a problem are the true idiots.

 

[F1fan]

Hmm ... hold up. I'm thinking ... maybe I umm, lets see (refer to last sentence).

Perhaps politicians will one day learn not to lie. I've read articles about the notion that we are born liars.

Sorry, but we all lie. Even when the statement is sincere it can be a lie. How many times have theists, believers, stated that God exists? Some claim that they know God exists. It's not true, and to be totally factual they lie when they refer to any gods as if they exist. So trying to pin lying just on politicians isn't truthful itself. Why should they be held to a standard that no one else has to?

Humans have to lie, it is part of our social navigation. We tell many white lies, which are little deceptions that help keep the peace.

Apparently it's a scientific fact, but I figure most people understand it to be true anyway. It takes effort and desire to grow beyond our more child like tendencies. I'm still not very good at not being child like, but I do aim to be truthful.

What is true to you might not be true to others. We humans are not like Spock who is heavily logical and not very emotional. It is how our brains evolved, to be both rational but also with the same primitive brain as other animals, that leads to our thinking gets distorted. Our emotions come naturally, and we can easily fall into untrue beliefs because they are satisfying and fire our reward center. How doe this work? When our brains believe or defend some idea that is true or even untrue it can inject hormines into our blood and it activates our reward center, and we get a bit of a natural high. This is how theists have euphoric expriences in church, it is a chemical experience. Does the theist know this? No. They will believe it is an experience with God. Why do they believe false things? Because that is what they were taught by others around them.

 

[PureX]

Correction: Only idiots think religion is the only or even main problem. But those who think religion is not a problem are the true idiots.

Do you think the flag an army flies as they are committing mayhem is responsible for the mayhem? Because religions are just collections of symbols and rituals and stories and platitudes that become tribal identity emblems. They are conceptual tools people use to express and maintain their chosen cultural and philosophical ideology. Religions are no more responsible for the mayhem done in their name than a hammer is responsible for building a house, or a pistol is responsible for killing someone. And we would all be idiots for refusing to recognize this simple fact.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but we all lie. Even when the statement is sincere it can be a lie. How many times have theists, believers, stated that God exists? Some claim that they know God exists.

God does exist, and I know for a fact that God does exist. So do you. So does everyone. The confusion comes from people not clarifying what they mean by the terms "God" and "exist". And that is understandable since there is no way we can know what these terms truly refer to. We can only know what we think they refer to. And we don't all think they refer to the same things.

What is true to you might not be true to others.

Because the truth far excedes the scope of our comprehension, and because our brains are essentially a binary cognitive mechanisms, the truth becomes a paradox within our brain. And we humans have a hard time accepting and dealing with the reality of that. We want conformity, and uniformity, and consistency, and predictability. So we can be in control. Or so we can at least tell ourselves that we are in control.

 

[Twilight Hue]

God does exist, and I know for a fact that God does exist. So do you. So does everyone. The confusion comes from people not clarifying what they mean by the terms "God" and "exist". And that is understandable since there is no way we can know what these terms truly refer to. We can only know what we think they refer to. And we don't all think they refer to the same things.

I can say with certainty that God exists. Inside one's own personal realm with its own sort of reality.

Just not out here in what people refer to as the real world.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you think the flag an army flies as they are committing mayhem is responsible for the mayhem? Because religions are just collections of symbols and rituals and stories and platitudes that become tribal identity emblems. They are conceptual tools people use to express and maintain their chosen cultural and philosophical ideology. Religions are no more responsible for the mayhem done in their name than a hammer is responsible for building a house, or a pistol is responsible for killing someone. And we would all be idiots for refusing to recognize this simple fact.

You are welcome to believe that religions do not cause any problems - but where these non-problems will simply continue as they always have done.

 

[PureX]

I can say with certainty that God exists. Inside one's own personal realm with its own sort of reality.

Just not out here in what people refer to as the real world.

You have no idea what's "out there in the real world". And the fact that you think you do shows that you are not willing to accept your own limitations.