Should the Bible be taught to Minors?

[fallingblood]

If you want freedom of religion, then there are only two possible positions for you to take on the subject of educating children on or with the Bible. Either they are taught every single religious text on the planet, or they are not taught any religious text at all. Those are the only two ways this issue could be resolved that protects and respects all people of all faiths.

This is not an issue of freedom of religion, it's about not giving preference to a religion. History is a subject founded in facts that teaches facts, as is politics. Fiction can help children develop critical/analytical skills, and never drops the pretext that it is fiction. Religious texts serve to tell people how to live their lives, and assert that their way is usually the only or the best way. These things are not comparable.

If a kid wants to read the Bible in their own time, or if that kid's parents want him to read it, fine. I only object to the teaching of any singular religion in a public, educational setting.

It is freedom of religion though. The OP suggests that minors be banned from the Bible. That parents shouldn't be able to teach their children the Bible. That Churches shouldn't be able to teach children the Bible. That is definitely overstepping a right and freedom we should have.

As for in school though, not all religious text would have to be taught. In a literary sense, the Bible could be taught as a back ground for many literary works. Religious thought would not be taught in this context.

However, from my experience (in public schools), when the Bible is taught in a literature class, the Quran, and Eastern religious texts are also covered. Now, not every religious text is being taught, as that is nearly impossible, but there is no preference being shown. And I think that is what should be done.

Problem being that if you wanted to truly fight ignorance, you would have to do the exact same thing for almost every other religious text on the planet. You cannot give preferential treatment to the Bible on any level, or else you risk indoctrinating children, isolating children of other faiths, exposing children to prejudice and feeding them religious bias.

Not necessarily. One would only have to do so with the relevant religious texts. Meaning the texts that we would be exposed to. The Bible, Quran, and various Eastern religious texts from Buddhism and Hinduism. It would be a relatively few religious texts, and would be very easily done over a high school career.

 

[Storm]

If you want freedom of religion, then there are only two possible positions for you to take on the subject of educating children on or with the Bible. Either they are taught every single religious text on the planet, or they are not taught any religious text at all. Those are the only two ways this issue could be resolved that protects and respects all people of all faiths.

This is not an issue of freedom of religion, it's about not giving preference to a religion. History is a subject founded in facts that teaches facts, as is politics. Fiction can help children develop critical/analytical skills, and never drops the pretext that it is fiction. Religious texts serve to tell people how to live their lives, and assert that their way is usually the only or the best way. These things are not comparable.

If a kid wants to read the Bible in their own time, or if that kid's parents want him to read it, fine. I only object to the teaching of any singular religion in a public, educational setting.


Problem being that if you wanted to truly fight ignorance, you would have to do the exact same thing for almost every other religious text on the planet. You cannot give preferential treatment to the Bible on any level, or else you risk indoctrinating children, isolating children of other faiths, exposing children to prejudice and feeding them religious bias.

Moving the goalposts. The OP said nothing about public education.

 

[T-Dawg]

Who would issue the licenses, and under what guidelines?

I dunno, I'm just making general statements here. We'd probably have to create a new bureaucracy for the job, but we should be able to pull it off since taxes are also really high in this same fantasy world. Of course, one of the primary qualifications for receiving a license would be that the person must not believe the Bible literally.

(Granted, I'd have to alter the First Amendment to get away with this in real life, I'm just saying what would be ideal.)

By the way, is there a particular reason everyone finds this idea funny? Is 10 too young of an age or something? I would hope a 10 year old child has the mental capability of forming their own beliefs when they have the benefit of not being previously brainwashed.

 

[Punnchy]

The Bible contains many things that many people in our modern society would find cruel and barbaric. It contains racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, bloodlust, and rape. Does anyone think this should concern people that this is taught to children as the infalliable word of god?

Outside of a religious studies class, I see no reason that the bible should be taught in any way shape or form, its not a standard unless you go to a private school founded on biblical beliefs.

 

[Storm]

By the way, is there a particular reason everyone finds this idea funny?

"If my lord must ask, there is no point in answering."

 

[fallingblood]

I dunno, I'm just making general statements here. We'd probably have to create a new bureaucracy for the job, but we should be able to pull it off since taxes are also really high in this same fantasy world. Of course, one of the primary qualifications for receiving a license would be that the person must not believe the Bible literally.

(Granted, I'd have to alter the First Amendment to get away with this in real life, I'm just saying what would be ideal.)

By the way, is there a particular reason everyone finds this idea funny? Is 10 too young of an age or something? I would hope a 10 year old child has the mental capability of forming their own beliefs when they have the benefit of not being previously brainwashed.

There is a very good reason people would find it funny. It takes away people's rights, it breaks down the separation of Church and state. It strips away people's freedom. Basically, what you are advocating would end up having many long term negative consequences.

 

[YmirGF]

The Bible contains many things that many people in our modern society would find cruel and barbaric. It contains racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, bloodlust, and rape. Does anyone think this should concern people that this is taught to children as the infalliable word of god?

Well, if you couch it in those term, Senedy, I suppose. The reality is that that is not normally how the whole shtick is handled with children. Those interpretations are normally the domain of jaundiced adults - broadcast to other jaundiced adults.

When I was a small child I attended a few Sunday school classes and I never heard about racism, sexism, homophobia, violence, blood lust and rape. Nor was I ever told that the Bible was the "infallible word of god", though I was told it was inspired by god to men who were prone to visions. The odd thing is, I didn't really believe what I was hearing. Children are indeed naive, but they are, in many cases, far from stupid.

 

[Armymike6174]

I agree with senedjem... for more on this topic you can check out my "Youth Indoctrination" post for additional commentaries on this subject.

 

[sojourner]

I dunno, I'm just making general statements here. We'd probably have to create a new bureaucracy for the job, but we should be able to pull it off since taxes are also really high in this same fantasy world. Of course, one of the primary qualifications for receiving a license would be that the person must not believe the Bible literally.

(Granted, I'd have to alter the First Amendment to get away with this in real life, I'm just saying what would be ideal.)

By the way, is there a particular reason everyone finds this idea funny? Is 10 too young of an age or something? I would hope a 10 year old child has the mental capability of forming their own beliefs when they have the benefit of not being previously brainwashed.

Well, see, there's the rub. Any governing body is either going to have a biased agenda, or no real clue. Since theology is a subjective, and not an objective, study, I don't see how it could be "governed." I also don't see how it could be outlawed, and still allow us to retain our freedoms.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

It should be illegal to read a Bible to a child under the age of 10 or have one in reach of the child, at least without a license. It's sort of like gun control - sure, there's some decent people who would read the Bible as a children's fiction book, but there's too many who take it seriously for it to be safe to distribute them to anyone without background checks.

Best quote so far :angel2:

 

[fallingblood]

Best quote so far :angel2:

So you advocate taking away people's rights? You are advocating government to break the separation of Church and state? You are advocating that government should be able to come into a person's home and tell them what they can teach their children?

Does that not make you a hypocrite? What you are advocating is intolerance, and most likely will lead to persecution.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So you advocate taking away people's rights? You are advocating government to break the separation of Church and state? You are advocating that government should be able to come into a person's home and tell them what they can teach their children?

Does that not make you a hypocrite? What you are advocating is intolerance, and most likely will lead to persecution.

Falling blood whenever parents use that book to teach their children racism and homophobia, yes I think there should be some level of control over it, and don't pretend it doesn't go on. If it didn't go on then you wouldn't have little kids calling each other f's at school and saying God hates f's, but that does go on, from little kids.

 

[T-Dawg]

Well, see, there's the rub. Any governing body is either going to have a biased agenda, or no real clue. Since theology is a subjective, and not an objective, study, I don't see how it could be "governed." I also don't see how it could be outlawed, and still allow us to retain our freedoms.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out. We either have brainwashed children running around believing in Yahweh, scarred for life by the idea of Hell and stories of violence and misogyny, or we have an authoritarian government that regulates religious freedom.
Once again, it appears that the only solution is to make me supreme evil overlord.

 

[Storm]

Falling blood whenever parents use that book to teach their children racism and homophobia, yes I think there should be some level of control over it, and don't pretend it doesn't go on. If it didn't go on then you wouldn't have little kids calling each other f's at school and saying God hates f's, but that does go on, from little kids.

So, in addition to wanting to ax the very Constitutional rights that allow you to live peacefully as a religious minority, you want to legislate every facet of human interaction?

Have you given the slightest thought to how this would work in reality? Because if we ditch religious freedom, the Christians aren't going to be the persecuted ones, you and I will. My church will be shut down, YOU'D probably go to prison, and both of us would be forbidden to raise children to protect them from our queer cooties.

Stop and think, dude.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So, in addition to wanting to ax the very Constitutional rights that allow you to live peacefully as a religious minority, you want to legislate every facet of human interaction?

Have you given the slightest thought to how this would work in reality? Because if we ditch religious freedom, the Christians aren't going to be the persecuted ones, you and I will. My church will be shut down, YOU'D probably go to prison, and both of us would be forbidden to raise children to protect them from our queer cooties.

Stop and think, dude.

Yes you've brought up a good point. I must concede. You're right. I didn't think about it that way. Still, I think people should stop and think about what they teach children. I at least ask that. That they think about it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is freedom of religion though. The OP suggests that minors be banned from the Bible. That parents shouldn't be able to teach their children the Bible. That Churches shouldn't be able to teach children the Bible. That is definitely overstepping a right and freedom we should have.

Ah, apologies. Didn't notice where the debate had moved on to. I'm definitely with you on that one.

As for in school though, not all religious text would have to be taught. In a literary sense, the Bible could be taught as a back ground for many literary works. Religious thought would not be taught in this context.

It's still giving preferential treatment to a religious doctrine, and would still class as holding one religion above others.

However, from my experience (in public schools), when the Bible is taught in a literature class, the Quran, and Eastern religious texts are also covered. Now, not every religious text is being taught, as that is nearly impossible, but there is no preference being shown. And I think that is what should be done.

In my experience, it's almost impossible to do that. As I've said, in an ideal world all religious texts would be studied objectively. But this is not an ideal world, and religious doctrines do not lend themselves well to readings without preference.

Not necessarily. One would only have to do so with the relevant religious texts. Meaning the texts that we would be exposed to. The Bible, Quran, and various Eastern religious texts from Buddhism and Hinduism. It would be a relatively few religious texts, and would be very easily done over a high school career.

Even just educating children on "relevant" religious texts is giving preferential treatment to certain religions over others.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Moving the goalposts. The OP said nothing about public education.

How is it moving the goalposts if I never stated an initial position? I just misunderstood at what idea his post was directed.

 

[Storm]

How is it moving the goalposts if I never stated an initial position? I just misunderstood at what idea his post was directed.

Ah, sorry.

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood whenever parents use that book to teach their children racism and homophobia, yes I think there should be some level of control over it, and don't pretend it doesn't go on. If it didn't go on then you wouldn't have little kids calling each other f's at school and saying God hates f's, but that does go on, from little kids.

Take away the book and what happens? Nothing. Those parents will continue teaching their kids to hate others.

However, at the same time, many parents use the Bible to instill good moral values. They use the Bible to teach their kids acceptance, and love.

Also, I never said it didn't go on. However, I do think you are making it something it is not. Because the vast majority of Christians are using the Bible to teach their children hate.

 

[Tathagata]

I don't know about anbody else, but I want to make this clear. My position that the Bible shouldn't be taught to minors is not an advocacy for banning the Bible for minors or any legal action. I am, in a sense, an Anarchist, so I would never advocate laws that tell people what to do.

I'm simply saying that the Bible shouldn't be taught to minors and I won't teach it to my children til they get older.


.