I'm skeptical of that one.Indeed! I like Richard Dawkins' idea that we SHOULD teach religion in schools! But it should be objective, comparative religion including atheism.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm skeptical of that one.Indeed! I like Richard Dawkins' idea that we SHOULD teach religion in schools! But it should be objective, comparative religion including atheism.
What a lovely verse!So , the person who hides the truth is a kafir . In Qur'an it was not limited to any specific race or sect of belief . In general , Christians and Jews are called 'The people of the Book' throughout the Qur'an . Even if there is dispute , Muslims are instructed to tackle it in the following manners ( not by shouting them as Kafir/infidels etc.)
“Do not argue with the people of the scripture except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitter ." [Al-Qur’an 29:46]
That is what is taught in a great many British schools. It has a number of advantages. One is to provide some understanding of religions other than Christianity, which is important in our multi-ethnic cities. It helps avoid the propagation of myths and prejudices. Another is to immunise students against ideas such as creationism, by allowing them to be discussed in a dispassionate setting, NOT in science classes. A third is to give students some inkling of the commonalities behind the religious impulse, which can help them be a bit more understanding towards believers of various sorts, even when they themselves don't have a religious belief. Fourthly, Christianity, specifically, is crucially important in European culture: it is hard to understand the art, literature and music properly without it.I'm skeptical of that one.
QUOTE
The term is used in different ways in the Quran, with the most fundamental sense being "ingratitude" (toward God).[7][8]Historically, while Islamic scholars agreed that a polytheist is a kafir, they sometimes disagreed on the propriety of applying the term to Muslims who committed a grave sin and to the People of the Book.[8][7] The Quran distinguishes between mushrikun and People of the Book, reserving the former term for idol worshipers, although some classical commentators considered Christian doctrine to be a form of shirk.[9] In modern times, kafir is sometimes used as a derogatory term,[10][3][11] particularly by members of Islamist movements.[1
UNQUOTE
From: Kafir - Wikipedia
I suppose it comes down to whether one thinks that the People of the Book are, in their different traditions, acknowledging the same Allah.
Indeed.Ahlul kithab do not become a kafir just because they are ahlul kithab. Lets say I call a man rogue, all men dont become rogues.
That is what is taught in a great many British schools. It has a number of advantages. One is to provide some understanding of religions other than Christianity, which is important in our multi-ethnic cities. It helps avoid the propagation of myths and prejudices. Another is to immunise students against ideas such as creationism, by allowing them to be discussed in a dispassionate setting, NOT in science classes. A third is to give students some inkling of the commonalities behind the religious impulse, which can help them be a bit more understanding towards believers of various sorts, even when they themselves don't have a religious belief. Fourthly, Christianity, specifically, is crucially important in European culture: it is hard to understand the art, literature and music properly without it.
So , the person who hides the truth is a kafir . In Qur'an it was not limited to any specific race or sect of belief . In general , Christians and Jews are called 'The people of the Book' throughout the Qur'an . Even if there is dispute , Muslims are instructed to tackle it in the following manners ( not by shouting them as Kafir/infidels etc.)
“Do not argue with the people of the scripture except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitter ." [Al-Qur’an 29:46]
The OP is interesting. To me, the elephant in the room in this case is that Islam seems to so frequently engender "us vs. them" thinking, and here we go again.
Everyone does that. Atheists do it equally. Since of late ive been thinking they do it to a seriously elevated degree to every other ism or thing.
i would say different belief systems seem to engender different levels of "us vs. them" thinking and secular humanists are on the light end of the spectrum. Remember, it's us SHists who fight hard for your freedom of religion
As one who attended school before the USSC decision to stopThat is what is taught in a great many British schools. It has a number of advantages. One is to provide some understanding of religions other than Christianity, which is important in our multi-ethnic cities. It helps avoid the propagation of myths and prejudices. Another is to immunise students against ideas such as creationism, by allowing them to be discussed in a dispassionate setting, NOT in science classes. A third is to give students some inkling of the commonalities behind the religious impulse, which can help them be a bit more understanding towards believers of various sorts, even when they themselves don't have a religious belief. Fourthly, Christianity, specifically, is crucially important in European culture: it is hard to understand the art, literature and music properly without it.
actually my impression is that the theocratic form of christianityI must agree with you. I also believe that Understanding religion is also understanding human development and decline. Christianity gave birth to a western leapforward in advancement. Denying this is denial. Even if the religion is false or not, thats a whole different subject.
actually my impression is that the theocratic form of christianity
retarded and held back the advancement of the species by locking things up in mystery doctrine, and superstition.
I would say a religion like for example Judaism has promoted more inquisitive thinking over time than christianity ever has....since where do a large percentage of the bright ideas come from
the vanguard of thinkers has been stacked with many people who follow judaism [ unless they are swiping lots of the ideas[g*d forbid] but i think it isn't so] ,
and that hasn't been really mirrored by institutional/official christianity really ever
they gave us the dark ages of ignorance and caused millions of people to suffer and die over their tenure ...so, sorry, not really convinced due to the historical record and personal experience
[and yes i know there are examples to the contrary]
Yes no doubt in the US Bible Belt some people would try abuse it to evangelise their own beliefs, possibly even with the connivance of the head teacher. In most places in Britain parents would complain if they tried that on - especially in city schools, where the pupils don't all come from a Christian background.As one who attended school before the USSC decision to stop
public school teachers from preaching their religion to us, I see
the risk that it would allow indoctrination to creep back in.
Also, that would take time away from other subjects. Not saying
it couldn't be beneficial, but I don't like it. Btw, in junior high
school, we did survey religions (1960s).