« Nurture the Soul | Main | Share With Us »
Should Religion Be Taught in the Public Schools?
While browsing one of my favorite websites the other day, The Pluralism Project, I came across a link to this provocative Op-Ed, from the Dallas Morning News. In this column, the author, an agnostic, argues for the teaching of religion in the public schools.
Say what?
Let me rephrase that: she argues that the public schools should be teaching children about religion, and about each of the philosophical perspectives that impact lives in a community. This is an idea that I've been advocating for a quite a while, and I believe that Ms. Mitchell does an excellent job of laying out the case for it. Give her column a read, and let me know what you think.
*****
You Might Not Expect an Agnostic to Say Let's Teach Religion in the Public Schools
by Deborah Mitchell
Sometimes we find allies in the most unusual people. I'm not a Christian, not a Jew, not a Hindu and not a member of any other organized religion. I'm agnostic, and I suppose that puts me on the fringe in my community.
It can be a scary place: There are no safety nets, no lights at the end of the tunnel. When I turn in for bed at night and the room is dark and quiet, I imagine that death feels similar to that nothingness.
I don't believe that a supreme being holds the answers to why a child is born with a birth defect or develops a brain tumor or has to live through a devastating hurricane. This can be a frightening way to live, and I understand why, with so much in the world that is out of our control, many of my neighbors pray.
Of the few people who know my beliefs, a couple of well-intentioned friends have tried to make a convert out of me. And that's OK; I believe it is an altruistic gesture. I was raised Catholic, but (sorry Father Kelly) somewhere along the line, I let go of the rope.
Often, there are references to God and Christianity right here in the Metro section. A recent commentary expounded the differences between conservative and progressive Christians. Even our president and other politicians invoke God's name on a regular basis. God talk is everywhere.
You might think that I don't want religion taught in our schools, that I would not want it taught to my children. Yet I do. I think that religion, being such an important part of our culture, should be an important part of our education, too. Teachings of all major religious thought, along with explanations of non-religious world views, both ancient and modern, would enrich and open our children's minds. Required religion courses – integrated with history and presented in an objective and factual way – might be just the thing we need to raise tolerant, thinking citizens.
One lesson I learned when my kids went off to elementary school was that talk of God could not be kept off the playground or out of the classroom. Students in my younger son's class, mere first-graders, often spoke to him about Jesus, angels and the devil. I also found that my older son's teacher and classmates sometimes talked of God and religion. And just the other day in McKinney, I watched as my son's soccer coach gathered the team and said a prayer before the game.
Clearly, our personality and spirituality are not like oil and water; it is impossible to separate these ingredients within ourselves. We cannot strain our religious beliefs out of our thoughts, ideas and actions anymore than our government can keep religion out of our courtrooms. Our faith as a nation shapes our laws and is the seed of so much controversy: abortion, gay marriages, stem-cell research. Since religion is so ubiquitous, we might as well acknowledge it and give it a place to hang its hat in the classroom.
There is much we can learn. History is spattered far and wide with the wrongs committed in the name of God or the mortals who have usurped the powers supposedly reserved for deities.
On the other hand, although religion is not a science, it is not quantifiable, and it is not based on logic; it is a creative construct that has served our nation well. It has provided hope and solace as well as a moral framework. Its history, ideas and prominent leaders have so much to offer, which we need to understand so that we can progress as a civilization.
In learning about other world views, we promote tolerance, encourage harmony and come to a greater understanding of all people, past and present.
Perhaps some will oppose this idea because they want religion in schools only on their own terms, in line with their own faiths. Yet we are not the same country we once were – we're no longer a small group of Christians escaping religious persecution. The melting pot is bigger, the soup more diverse. I believe our Founding Fathers wanted to embrace all religions into the public sphere.
It starts with our children, in the classroom. In order to fairly represent and understand all the individuals in our communities, I believe there is a place in our schools for teaching all religious and non-religious world views. This way we can grow tolerant, open-minded, critical thinkers. And yes, I want my children to understand your religion on their way to finding their own.
Deborah Mitchell is a frequent contributor to Collin County Opinions. Her e-mail address is Deborah_Mitchell@comcast.net.
Originally published September 22, 2005, in the Dallas Morning News.
If religion is taught in the schools it should be taught in terms of history and literature, in context, with all religions. In fact, my professor friend in Paris does this at the high school level, as part of literature.
It is unlikely in our current political and educational climate as we are probably not set up to do this. Who would design the curriculum? In fact, a city like mine has a very different role for state vs religion compared to a rural place in the "Bible belt."
On the plane back from France, I ran out of thins to do so I wrote a list of things I appreciated there, off the top of my head. I quickly had 8 pages. Near the top is the clear separation of church and state but at the very top was that I could learn about Africa and the middle east (including religion) without even making much effort, purely by absorption of culture out of the tourist belt.
American is a diverse melting pot, as the author states above, but Christianity is the majority religion in terms of numbers.
I personally would like to see a separation of the public/state and religous spheres that we are presently not even close to. I also l ike the law in France where students dress as students and must reserve their veils, crosses and religious hats for outside school.
Our religious groups in the US are forced to perform state functions that the state has abandoned (education, social services) and that is the way the Grover Norquist-modelled state wants it.
By the way, while I was gone, Bert of Mpls Vets for Peace did some really nice work on our blog, in two areas:
the Eyes Wide Open exhibit (you have to see the photo of the little girl with all the boots in the grass, as it's truly beautiful) - taken just yesterday
the demonstration in DC, which he attended, and which he came back from recharged and inspired
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/
Feel free to comment.
Here is another link (from his proud sister), where you can see more photos and leave messages, if you wish.
Click here: The cost of war: Eyes Wide Open Photo Gallery by n at pbase.com or http://www.pbase.com/kayakbiker/cost_of_war
An exhibition on the human cost of the Iraq War. These images were taken at St Catherine's campus in St Paul, Minnesota on October 1, 2005.
Yet another great gallery of pics taken by my brother - Brenda
While I agree with the author in principal and have seen this working well in my adopted country Canada, my experiences over the last few years of living back in the US tell me that it would be a disaster here.
Curriculum is written locally in many states. Local School district boards are easily manipulated by fanatical religious groups who think nothing of publicly attacking the personal reputations of anyone with whom they disagree. The predictable end result in these districts would be a curriculum that ultimately points out why literalist christianity is superior to all other schools of thought.
It just seems that Americans aren't really ready to accept that christianity, like all religions, is a creative construct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?ex=1128916800&en=2456d737535bc570&ei=5070
Very interesting and informative article in the NYTimes Magazine about Senator Clinton and the Democratic Party. Too much in there to pick one quote....
Allow a fundamentalist ANYTHING to teach what they want and you are asking for abuses of the right to teach ABOUT religious views.
What would be taught?
Christianity GOOD...Islam BAD.
or Islam GOOD...Christianity BAD.
Separation of Church and State must be just that...complete and utter separation.
Would the government publish a text book explaining ALL religions to be used in every single public school?
IMPOSSIBLE!
Or they would contract Halliburton to do it for $50 billion dollars and all we would get is a sheet of paper saying "God is good...vote Republican."
Keep religion out of our government and school system, and we'll keep our government out of your church.
The Constitution assures the right to PRACTICE religion...in a church...in a synogogue...in a mosque...in a private school or a home.
Teaching about religion is a personal choice of the individual and should not be allowed in public schools funded with public funds...period.
Teach children how to THINK and let them make their own personal choices and decisions.
Posted by: Amy at October 2, 2005 11:21 AM
principal should be principle! Guess it was the thinking about schools....
"Allow a fundamentalist ANYTHING to teach what they want and you are asking for abuses of the right to teach ABOUT religious views." posted by Indy
Agreed.
A majority of the population of a country/state/district would have to have reached the level of tolerance and acceptance that Mitchell seems to have reached with regard to all religions. As it is, the majority of Americans still believe that "Christianity is right, the rest are wrong" and thus the abuses you mention would occur.
I love reading about and learning about religions--but not as gospel, as philosophy and cultural studies.
One of the most memorable projects from my otherwise-horrific sixth-grade year was an International Day where we each brought in foods and dressed in costumes and reported on different cultures. The lesson learned by all: There is value in all beliefs.
Critical thinking skills are what we need to be addressing. In order to deconstruct an idea, one needs direct experience with it, and the ability to place the idea in a larger framework.
That's what we should be teaching kids to do-the subject areas ought to serve the cognitive development, not the other way around.
Dewey and Piaget were both right...
Posted by: Karen at October 2, 2005 11:42 AM
Jefferson wrote the book on it...or the Articles rather.
"Be it enacted by the General assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, not shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
"And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
Pre, Primary, Middle and High Schools are NOT the place for teaching religions...my point being who are WE, the people, to decide which religions will be taught?
If we insist on the three major Western religions do we also include all of the Native American religions and South American religions or even Athiesm...yeah that would go over well in America.
We could not possibly do so, therefore, let us keep it simple.
Children have a hard enough time comprehending why they need to go to bed by a certain time, we cannot ask that they attempt to comprehend that they have a choice as to which god they may worship or which religious group they have the choice to join...
Spirituality is a life-long quest by the individual to come to grips with their own individual existence, not a subject to be taught in public schools by those already convinced of their own piety.
Keep 'em Separated.
Just a reminder... don't forget to post your best wishes to Ryan and his friends and family on the prior thread!
"If we insist on the three major Western religions do we also include all of the Native American religions and South American religions or even Athiesm...yeah that would go over well in America."
Posted by: Indy at October 2, 2005 11:54 AM
Absolutely. That would be the point. And, yes, atheism and agnosticism would definitely be explored as intently as Christianity, since they represent the worldview of a significant segment of Americans.
That would be the bargain: want to talk about religion? Fine. Then talk about it in a way that truly respects intellectual diversity, and gives children a much better sense of what men and women of good will, be they atheistic, spiritual, or faith-based, think.
They have a name for this subject already: it's called comparative religion, and it's not controversial at all - except to zealots who think it's their role in life to brainwash their children.
One more point. Offering Comparative Religion would resolve the "Intelligent Design" issue, since it would naturally come up in any discussion of how the world's religions view the subject of "creation".
Im with Indy on this one too, keep your church out of our schools and we will keep our government out of your churches
You can not put them together without whoring them both into a whole brothel of ugly.
Religion is a personal freedom. lets keep it that way.
They have a name for this subject already: it's called comparative religion, and it's not controversial at all - except to zealots who think it's their role in life to brainwash their children.
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at October 2, 2005 12:25 PM
Zealots and religious fanatics cannot be trusted to teach equal time for all religions within the "comparison" and in my personal experience with comparative religion in my Catholic high school was that only the three major Western Religions were discussed.
Taking religion OUT of public schools completely is the only way to assure true separation of any church and out government.
As we all are aware it has been abused innumerable times and will continue to be unless religious teachings are completely removed from the curriculum of all public schools, inculding prayer at school sporting events.
Playing on our human compassion, all college football games aired after the hurricanes have included Christian prayer on National TV.
Keep 'em Separated.
"Zealots and religious fanatics cannot be trusted to teach equal time for all religions within the "comparison" and in my personal experience with comparative religion in my Catholic high school was that only the three major Western Religions were discussed."
Posted by: Indy at October 2, 2005 12:59 PM
We're talking about the public schools. You attended a Catholic school, as did I.
In my experience, materialists can be every bit as intolerant and aggressive as any religious fundamentalist.
No, religion should not be taught in the public schools, and comparative religion should not be taught until the college years.
When coming from a fundamentalist background, as I do, I would object on the basis that all religions would be taught, and it would cause confusion in the mind of my own children. There might even be situations where the teacher would compare world religions, and point out which religious beliefs have caused more death and destruction than others. That would be necessary in any comparative study of world religions. That could tnen create a confusion in children's minds when their parents try to teach them what the real teachings of Christ were, just for one instance. They'll find that stuff out soon enough, when they're adults, and they'll, hopefully, be able to distinguish their own Christianity from the faux Christianity that's in power now. I believe that, as a parent, I have the right to train my children in the manner I wish. If they then leave for college, or go out into the world and find other beliefs, as at least one of my children has done, that's fine with me too. Because I'm not truly sure that anyone's real religious beliefs are formed until adulthood anyway. Mine certainly weren't. But my conscience is still clear- because I've taught my children the best that I can. And they know that they are free to explore other thoughts as adults. We're all free to do that. If what they decide to believe as adults brings them peace and happiness, I'm ok with that too. I certainly don't believe every single thing my own mother taught me about the Christian religion anymore, but she had every right as a parent to pass down her beliefs to me without any teacher at any school trying to mess with what she was teaching. So do Islamic parents, and so do Jewish parents. Our government should stay out of
that. It's just not their business.
Leonard Pitts Jr. weighs in on the subject...
A matter of faith, not science
--snip--
I believe in God. I believe God is the sovereign author of creation. But that is a matter of faith, not science. Faith, as it says in the book of Hebrews, is the evidence of things not seen. Science, by contrast, is founded upon observable phenomena. They are diametric opposites, but both seek the same goal: to help man and woman comprehend their lives and their world. To help them find answers.
I would argue that faith and science are in some ways more complementary than contradictory. But it's telling that where they do conflict, as in the question of human origin, it's always people of faith who beg for validation. I mean, when has any scientist ever sued for equal time in the pulpit? There is an unbecoming neediness about these constant schemes to dress religion up as science. Why are some people of faith so desperate for approval from a discipline they reject?
It suggests an insecurity that belies the bellicose battle cry of Bible literalists: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Or in the words of a church sign as related to me last week by a minister in Maine: Reason is the enemy of faith.
That's a sad, troubling and even pathetic mindset.
We inhabit a universe vaster than human comprehension, older than human wanderings, more wondrous than human conception. And in the face of that, we do the natural thing. We ask questions and seek answers.
That's not a denial of God. It is evidence of him.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002534612_pitts02.html
Sophomores at our school are taught world religions as part of their world history class, and I believe seniors are offered an elective called World Religions for one semester. It's a popular class, and the teacher is great. She does not let them know what her personal religion is, and she certainly does not teach them that one religion is better than another. It's a class that promotes appreciation for religious diversity, broadens the kids' minds, and teaches them the contributions that different religions have made in literature and/or culture throughout history. It works quite well. But then, we are a private school.
... private SECULAR school though
An interesting debate, and between two of my very favorite posters at that.
Oh, do I dare offer my humble opinion? Why not?
The point is that there is a difference between teaching about religion, and teaching religon.
The former is absolutely necessary in order to understand the world, the latter is the individual's own choice. It is that choice that Jefferson sought to preserve.
However in our zeal to keep religion out of the public square we deny our childern the chance to truly understand the people around them. I do not approve of prayer in school, yet I want my childern and grandchildern to understand why people pray. Is that too fine a line? Perhaps, yet a much needed one.
To study History, Art and Litature without understanding the underlying role that religion plays is to fail to understand those studies at all. Just to be Western centric.. Can one understand the Middle Ages without the role of the Catholic Church or the Enlightenment without the role of the Reformation? Can one study Michaelanglo without the Sistine Chapel? The English language without the influence of the King James Bible?
Ok boys, have at me if you will.
And just an aside, our schools here in Florida have stopped requiring Civics to graduate from High School, because there's just no room in the curriculum for it. There are too many other courses that are now required for college entrance. If we have no room for Civics, which I think should be taught at least two years in high school, why should comparative religion be even considered as a class?
We can't have it both ways- we say we want it kept out of the schools, and outside of the schools is where it should be taught. Colleges are a different situation altogether.
As well intentioned as the author is on this controversial subject, I firmly believe that there is no room for teaching comparitive religion in the public schools. Many of the objections have been voiced above and I will not reiterate them in my post.
Discussing religion's role in history's darkest times (the Crusades, the Inquisition, Adolph Hitler's rise to power using Christian fundamentalism,and fundamentalist Muslims taking Iran and exporting their religious beliefs to its neighbors, OBL using Muslim extremism for murder and terror ) would be more appropriate. I am sure that there must have been other people who used religion as the reason for their malevolent behavior, but I am not as well versed in these issues as some other participants in the blog. Perhaps a comparative study of how religions have been abused to obtain power and dominace would be a better idea. Others may argue, why limit to the darker side of religion in our society? I would submit that the subject could be resolved when it is made clear that all religions are based on goodwill towards all and malice towards none, and that when religion is corrupted society is harmed.
I remember a part of my Sunday School curriculum included comparative religions. It was probably the only thing I learned in Sunday School. The religions were taught with respect and various local representatives from the community would come and talk with us. For reasons outlined in previous posts. if this were tried in a public school, it would be a monumental failure.
Linda, I would argue, as I did above, that the teaching of compartive religion doesn't occur in a single class, but that religion's role should be taught in the normal course of teaching.
What! No Civics classes? That would explain how the state of Flordia elected Jeb. They just didn't know any better.
I have 5 kids and anyone discussing religion with them better damn well be personally asked by me to do so. Specifically asked by me.
I have been known to chase down missionaries, Christian missionaries no less, who said the WAY wrong thing to my kid. They never should have approached my child in the first place. My childrens spiritual path is thiers alone to deal with and it is mine alone to worry with. Anyone inserting themselves into that particular place better be prepared to kill me. I dont care wether they call themselves Christian or whatever. These so called 'church people' around here seem so shocked when I tell them thier need to seek out other peoples kid is in itself unGodly. and then the shit they say.....
She told my kid she was 'dirty in her heart' and that the devil would get her for it. No I didnt beat up the chuch lady but i damn sure invited her to an ass whipping anyway.
I don't pretend to be Jesus and I won't be turning the other cheek anytime soon.
I told her straight out if I ever saw her around my kids again I would choke the life outta her. My 6 year old was in a horrified panic and still asks me the oddest questions about why that lady said that to her.
I believe in God. But I also believe God left us to our own devices. My children will choose thier own religion. I only pray they choose faith.
If my kid came home spouting fundamentalist crap, or even someone elses interpretation of God, I know war would ensue very shortly after.
Thats what happens when you mix God and policy.. you get holy wars.
Teaching religion in school is the worst idea Ive ever heard. If for no other reason then because I know it is almost certainly a precursor to all out hell on earth.
Ladytechie- yes, it is necessary to know about the Catholic Church's role in the Middle Ages, because the Church at that time almost operated as a separate government and did have huge influence over history. But it's not necessary to know Catholic Doctrine in order to know the huge role that church has had in history. And as for the King James Bible- I studied it as a child, but the Latin course I took in high school taught me a lot more about the English language than the Bible ever did.
As far as teaching our children to understand the views of people around them by teaching them comparative religion- I think you may be overestimating the ability of children to understand differences in religion as "separate but equal." Particulary when they're being taught at home that their own religion is unquestionable. Understanding others comes with maturity, and maturity, unfortunately, only comes with age. Sometimes it doesn't even come then. The schools are already overburdened trying to teach little Johnny to read- give them a break. Don't require that kids learn philosophy until they're ready for it. And we also need to understand that there are billions of people worldwide who live happy, productive lives without ever questioning the religious beliefs they were taught as kids. It's pretty arrogant of us to not think they can be tolerant people because of their religion. Pretty much all religions teach both tolerance and bigotry- picking and choosing the right aspects of your religion is the key to being a good person. Not what God it is that you worship.
Crapola Christy, we're agreeing again ????
I think that a lot of the opinions on this subject have to do with whether you're a parent or not. If we keep saying religion should be taught in the home by parents, and not in the schools, then that's exactly WHERE it should be taught. I don't want any teacher comparing my child's religion to anyone elses in a classroom. And I'd be at the school board the next day if they tried to do so. I also, by the way, object to prayer in the public schools and at football games for the same reason. Especially at football games- all that pointing at the sky after a touchdown. How arrogant to think that God cares whether you carried a ball over a goal-line or not- pointing to the sky is such an imbecilic thing to do. But I guess that's another subject altogether.
Im not teaching religion im teaching COMPARATIVE religion...
Thats like refusing to admit your an achoholic but being proud to be a drunk every weekend anyway.
Its all semantics.
ladytechie- yes, no Civics are taught in the schools here in Florida. They're, supposedly, now taught as part of history classes, but we all know that the history teachers are so busy that they only get up to about WWII before the end of the school term. And, not to be politically incorrect, but since they're now also required to teach American history from the viewpoint of every diverse group that ever occupied American soil, they sometimes don't even get to WWII. Civics is an afterthought that they just never get around to. And yes, it's the lack of Civics that helped Jeb into office, but Americans generally are totally ignorant of how their country operates. Even I'm a little ignorant- when someone is indicted for a crime, like Tom Delay, doesn't an arrest usually follow?????? Even my civics are a little confused right now.
Linda, you make a vaild point, the role of religion has, at times, been a dark one. I would never argue that. I would however be sorely disappointed if that were the only view presented. Karen makes the point above, you cannot deconstuct an idea if you don't understand it in the first place. I am not, suggesting that any particular religion be taught, that is not my point at all. What I am saying is that an understanding of religion, and yes, that would mean understanding the doctrine of it, is vital to understanding the motivations of people.
Do I think that this is first grade material. Of course not, I don't expect a first grader to understand the Crusades. Do I think an 11th grader should? You bet, I am appalled at the dumbing down
of middle school and high school curriclum in general anyway. I sound like an old geezer, but in my day we had read Plato and John Stuart Mills by 11th grade. We don't give young people enough credit, they are far more capable of critical thinking than we give them credit for. College is to late to teach the "Big Ideas". The orginal idea of public schooling was an informed populace, not merely an informed elite.
Posted by: Ladytechie at October 2, 2005 01:30 PM
Lady,
There is no denying religions influence on society, but that is not the question. However the author of the article goes so far to say:
Required religion courses – integrated with history and presented in an objective and factual way – might be just the thing we need to raise tolerant, thinking citizens.
How does one decide what part of the religion should be taught? Religion presented in an objective and factual way is not religion, it is a description of a religion. I too was taught about religion's influence on the western society, but not about the religion itself. If I wanted to know more about a religion, I would ask. But, I would not ask a public school teacher, I would ask my parents. They always directed me to objective sources about the religion.
Learning objectively about a religion is not prostelytizing. However discussing a religion in an objective manner will surely anger some who believe that the objective description is not an adequate representation of the religion's beliefs. "Teaching religion" in a public school is not going to change the fervent believer from continuing with their own prejudices. MIght it help them to better understand other religions and perhaps be more tolerant? I believe that would be possible, but it can just as easily be done without "teaching religion". Teaching *about* religion's influence on history is more likely to help students gain the tolerance we all hope for.
It is not up to us to define religion in someone. The smallest belief can tilt the entire balance of someones faith. In the end you can not tell ANYONE what to believe.
I do not even have that right as a mother. My kids will believe what they believe. Can I shape that? Yes. Can I direct that .. yes. Can I tell my son not to be angry? No. The best I can do is pursuade him to change his heart.
It is NO ONES right to tell me how I feel, or what I believe. My own mother may even worry about it but that is between myself and God.
The smallest difference can faction whole societies. For example, most of you take it on faith that I have faith, however I am a One God christian. Not a Jesus christian.
What does that mean exactly? It does NOT mean I do not believe Jesus was a real man. I do believe he was very very real. I do believe he WAS and is 'special'. I do believe he had..powers.
But do I believe he was the 'Son of God'..?
Well, that is entirely a matter of faith. He certainly said he was.
So did his mother who at 15 was betrothed to an 80 year old Joseph. Yes I said EIGHTY. If I were a 15 year old betrothed to a village elder who suddenly came up pregnant under any circumstances, lets just say I was 15 once and it could not have been a worse position for her to be in.
It literally meant death by stoning if it were anyone ELSE BUT Gods child.
The story of Moses also leaves me with fundamental questions.
However, if you believe in the same God that made the trees, then I can not help but believe we share the very same God.
The faction on its face would not seem like a big deal, but tell that to the kurds. Or the egyptians and Afgans.
We should all be skeptical of the motives of men anytime God is discussed. To be any less would take away the fundamental laws of creation that rules us.
We live by the law of the jungle. God made the jungle and placed us there, so it was HE who made it so.
The weak only live because we allow it.
The only function of government should be to assure the maximum survival rate possible.
Anytime they divert from that into discussing God, you can be sure people somewhere will die in the name of God, and mankind itself will never ever evolve again.
oncall Our positions on this aren't as far apart as them seem. You are right, my argument is more for teaching "about" religion than teaching religion.
I do think that, at times, it does have to include the understanding of doctrine. Another Western centric example, How can you explain the Spainish exploration of the New World without understanding that one of the chief motvations was to "spread the Gospel" as commanded by Christ "Go forth then and spead the news to all peoples".
What I agrue against here is the mindset of my old Ancient History teacher. I did my final on First Century Christanity and it's influence on the Roman Empire. (For heaven's sake don't ask me to defend the paper now that was 40 years ago!) The point is that I used the Book of Acts as a souuce and got a D on the paper.. she didn't approve of the source. I would suggest that an open mind is required by both those who defend religion and those who oppose it. Again, it's hard to argue when you don't understand the premise in the first place.
The weak only live because we allow it.
Posted by: Christy at October 2, 2005 02:27 PM
To me, that is what the basic tenets of all religions have done for humanity.
A "one God Christian" sounds like a Jew to me (Just kidding).
Posted by: Ladytechie at October 2, 2005 02:14 PM
I can't agree with you more. An understanding of Intellectual History - and I see comparative religion as a component of intellectual history - is the foundation of an Enlightened Democracy. As a society, we have an obligation to challenge Americans to think.
I debate conservatives a lot on the net, usually in the New York sports groups. You'd be shocked how narrow and myopic their perspective often is. It's as if they've simply absorbed the propaganda of the religious and secular right like a sponge does fluid - totally uncritically. And I suspect that elements of the left are pretty similiar in that regard.
I can appreciate the view that perhaps some of this might be inappropriate for younger children. But high school age children? I doubt it. I'd be a lot more worried about the messages they're getting from music videos (I'm an old fogy, I know) than I would a study of comparative religion/intellectual history.
As a society, we have the biggest bombs on the planet, but we certainly don't have the biggest minds.
By the way, lots of information at the afterdowningstreet site about the possible link to Bush in the Fitzgerald investigation. It appears that this conversation is based on a George Stephenopoulos comment.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=
ladytechie- my problem with your idea is the you would Never be able to find enough completely impartial teachers to teach comparative religion in high school in the first place. The people who would be drawn to teach those courses would have an agenda- where I live, in the South, they'd either be fundamentalist Christians or secular humanists, both of which have an agenda, though secular humanists don't admit it.
I had many College professors who could probably, and did in fact, teach religion with no particular bias towards any faith at all. However, even they tended to have an agenda, in that they wanted to convince us of the "commonalities" of all religions- the belief in the Great Flood, the story of a "Suffering Savior," etc- their goal being to convince the students in their classes that all religions are based on myths. Their agenda was not to make their students more tolerant, but to make their students realize that all religion is myth. And yes, even as a college student, it was confusing to my Faith. But I'd paid for the class, I'd asked for it, and I had no one to blame for taking it but myself. If these same teachers had tried to teach that to my kids in high school, I'd have protested to the high heavens.
I'm not underestimating high school students- most of them are fairly tolerant already. A lot of them are checking out other religions on their own- they talk about religion with their friends and they'll eventually, as I did, come to some satisfactory belief that helps them get through life. But it's not the job of a school teacher to point them in any particular direction at all, that that would be the agenda of almost anyone who'd want to teach comparative religion to high schoolers. It's not the idea that's bad, it would be the way the idea was actually executed. And that's where parents have every right to object. Religion just needs to stay out of the public school system completely. We just can't have it both ways.
LadyT,
Your example about the Spanish explorations is important as it distinctly highlights why the discussion about religion in public schools is a slippery slope. Why should I know that the Gospels claim to "go forth and spread the news"? Why wouldn't it be enough for me to know that the Spaniards believed they were on a Christian religious mission? One could argue that the Christian mission was based on the Gospels and the Gospels profoundly influenced people's motivations to do the things they did. Yet, that opens up even more questions. Still, it is only worth noting that the explorers were influenced by their religion.
A "one God Christian" sounds like a Jew to me (Just kidding).
Posted by: oncall at October 2, 2005 02:38 PM
Actually alot of my beliefs mirror the precursor to organized Christianity. When christianity was pagan, if you will.
I sometimes wonder how closely my beliefs may have mirrored the religion of Mary. Ofcourse if there was no Christ yet then she ofcourse must have been raised on a different belief system entirely.
So yes i guess alot of my beliefs would be based in Judeisim, but am no anglo christian by far.
Why should I know that the Gospels claim to "go forth and spread the news"?
Posted by: oncall at October 2, 2005 02:48 PM
I think Montazumah was watching Fox News.
But oncall, inquring minds want to know.. It depends.
Let me use another example.. Can one teach the Holocaust without bringing religion into it? Is it truly enough to just accept the premise that Hitler hated the Jews, without understanding the reasons he had? I grant again that my examples are all Westen centric, but again, you can't even understand Iraqi politics without an understanding of religion.
Is it truly enough to just accept the premise that Hitler hated the Jews, without understanding the reasons he had?
Ladytechie at October 2, 2005 02:57 PM
I think the fundamental view hitler did it for any religous means is off. He did not hate them because they were jew.
He hated them because they were rich. And he slaughtered them for thier money, thier property, and for his own glory.
Even then the talk of religion was all semantics.
It was all just an excuse to kill people whom you wanted to rob anyway.
Same reason genocide was committed upon my people here, our people, the native indians.
It wasnt about God... or really even belief.. It was about theft on a global scale.
The blood of the iraqis are also being used to cover the EXACT SAME CRIME.
Not God.
Theft. Murderous theft.
WELL, as I was typing up my opinion, you all were talking swirls around my head.
But, anyway, here is my two pesos worth:
~ ~ * * ~ ~
That's what we should be teaching kids to do-the subject areas ought to serve the cognitive development, not the other way around.
Posted by: Karen at October 2, 2005 11:42 AM
My first thoughts were, that would be a great idea!
Then, as I thought about the ability of children to absorb and understand the information in the context intended, I feel it would do more harm than good in younger children.
I feel it would be too confusing for younger children and cause conflict and insecurity for
them.
I feel that one of the things that help children maintain a sense of security is routine and order, and in their younger years it might be un-
settling for them, as they are very busy learning basic skills like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and social skills at school, home, and in some cases, church, and in public. I think they are too young to successfully handle the inner conflict that would result. I personally feel that they need security and structure in those early years more than they need to learn diversity of religion.
Many children do not attend institutions of higher learning, and would not have the benefit of learning about other religions once they had completed the 12th grade, so an elective course taught in high school might be a great option, as by then children might be mature enough to view the information objectively as well as appreciate the merits of it. People start making some life decisions in the teen years that affect them throughout adulthood.
However, if I knew my child would never attend college, and he had the choice of choosing between two elective courses - one that taught job skills or one that taught world religions, I would rather he selected the job skills course.
No wonder the Christian church in America is infested with neocon nonsense. Many people
in America are poor, and have never had a chance to be taught anything besides what they know. The lack of opportunity in this country for many poor to attend institutions of higher learning causes a segment of society that is inbred with ignorance. They want to be spoonfed, and want to be led.
Ignorance is not the same thing as stupid. Many people in many churches in America are very bright, but were born in a culture that never afforded them diversity of thought or experience.
I am putting on my tin foil hat.......to me, that's what makes the neocons' infiltration of America's Christian churches all the more sinister. Someone, somewhere, in my and my tin foil hat's opinion, studied all this out and knew exactly what they were doing and why before they conned the Christian churches into group mind control tactics.
Ever wonder who Karl Rove's boss is?
"Ignorance is not the same thing as stupid. Many people in many churches in America are very bright, but were born in a culture that never afforded them diversity of thought or experience."
Absolutely.
Religion does have to be discussed, but I believe that the only necessary component to that discussion is the simple statement that Hitler used Christianity as a reason for perpetuating the Holocaust against Jews and other non-Christians. As regards to Middle Eastern politics, for me it is enough to know that Muslim fundamentalists feel that American presence in Saudi Arabia insults their religion, and that the desecration of the Qur'an by American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay is blasphemy:
Qur'an desecration means insulting the Qur'an by defiling or dismembering it. Muslims must always treat the book with reverence, and are forbidden, for instance, to pulp, recycle, or simply discard worn-out copies of the text. (Such books must be respectfully burned or buried.) [4]
Respect for the written text of the Qur'an is an important element of religious faith by many Muslims. They believe that intentionally insulting the Qur'an is a form of blasphemy. According to the laws of some Muslim countries, blasphemy is punishable by lengthy imprisonment or even the death penalty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 2, 2005 03:12 PM
And another good argument I have for offering a world religions class in high school rather than in elementary school is because when children are younger, their world revolves more around their immediate family, and neighood, and their family is more important and influential than any outside source.
As a child becomes a teen their interactions are focused more toward people and situations outside their immediate family, and they begin to test their wings and start making autonomous decisions.
It seems the more secure the foundation in their younger years, the more healthy and positive and productive are the decisions made during the teen years.
Ever wonder who Karl Rove's boss is?
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 2, 2005 03:12 PM
Could it be...Satan?
neighood above should be neighborhood.
Sorry Mr. Rogers.....
Truth..
Once its in the highschools why not the 7th grade?
Whats to stop them from 4th graders? 2nd?
Before you know it they will be SO SURE the ONLY way our kids can REALLY UNDERSTAND religion is to get bibles with kindergarten enrollment.
Once you open pandoras box, there is no going back.
Posted by: Christy at October 2, 2005 03:28 PM
Some people make the same argument about sex education.
Sex is not about God either.
truth: You're absolutely correct about that. Rove knew that these people were easy to convince, because they do tend to ignore anything that conflicts with what they believe already. My point was that that doesn't make them bad people-it's ok to want to live your life with stability and with some sort of order, continuing to believe what you're taught as a child- IF, and it's a big IF- you've made the decision to cling to the positive, tolerant teachings of your religion rather than the intolerant judgemental ones. But so many preachers, especially in my part of the country, address their congregations and rule them through fear. People will come home from church and say the pastor really gave a great "hell fire and brimstone" sermon today- that's what they've heard from childhood. They've been conditioned to believe in a god of Fear instead of a God of Love. They've embraced the negative side of their religion instead of the positive side. And it's that fear that throws them into the Republican party. They're afraid of doubting- faith is the final test, after all. Rove knew that- if he could only convince them that he was on their side (the Bible Believing Fundamentalist God Bless America no matter what thing) they'd be afraid to criticize Bush in anything he did, no matter how wrong. Because criticizing Bush is like criticizing God to them. So, they ignore the things he does-the people in my own family who are Republicans don't even know what the Plame affair is about, they don't know who or what Tom Delay has done, because when that stuff comes on TV, that stuff that is critical of Bush, they simply turn the channel to some reality TV show. And they won't listen to anyone who brings that stuff up to them- they simply refuse to allow their thought processes to become that confusing. They're people who have made the decision to believe, no matter what, and Bush is now part of their Faith. Rove is a genius, there's no doubt about that.
There's no getting to these people, and no point in even trying . But there are still some Christians who call themselves fundamentalists who can be reached- those who aren't Christians out of fear but out of love. They may be choosing to believe their pastors now, but they're not living in such a state of fear that they can't use their brains anymore. We've got to reach them THROUGH their Christianity though, and not in spite of it.
It really can be done. I know, because I changed to the Democratic party because of my religion, not in spite of it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That's the people who could change the Red states to Blue ones. Kerry sort of knew that, but didn't go far enough with it.
I think I know who Rove's boss is, but it's insane when I say it, so I'll just keep it to myself.
Lady Techie,
Why do you say once it hits higher learning it is too late? I am very interested in why you say that.
Christy,
I am not saying kindergarden, or the fourth grade.
I think it might be a worthy subject taught in high school.
Oncall,
I would hope that the class would be taught objectively, with an explanation of the basic belief of each religion. But then, like someone said, that could open a whole 'nuther can of worms, because if done in a public state funded school, there would be many disgruntled students and parents who felt their religion was not adequately and realistically portrayed. That could lead to parents storming the public school administrator's office, and law suits, and more.
Okay, Matt, oh ye who makes us think every week...
I think it is best taught in institutions of higher learning, because to do so in public funded schools carries alot of baggage.
I think part of the problem is the term 'religion' has been allowed to take on ver broad definitions.
ANYTIME you add God to a discussion, it is about semantics. God has proved many times He is not coming to save us. He has let us prove many times we can save OURSELVES.
When you are discussing God and your implications of faith, THAT is religion, and we put all that in a plce called churches.
Aything else is just bullshit designed to make faction appear.
When religion and policy mix the logical conclusion will always be the destruction of both as ANY moral authority.
No church, anywhere, ever at any time has been and never will be...
A DEMOCRACY.
Faith is compelled in us. We MUST answer to a higher faith as INDIVIDUALS.
But anytime you put religion into policy, policy itself becomes subjicated to FAITH.
I dont care if bush kissed the baby Jesus right in front of me. I STILL would not trust him to teach my kids about what God says do.
Frankly I wouldnt trust ANYONE to teach my kids MANDATORY lessons in religion. Thats just no good at all.
Frankly I wouldnt trust ANYONE to teach my kids MANDATORY lessons in religion. Thats just no good at all.
Posted by: Christy at October 2, 2005 03:53 PM
What if the class were an elective?
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at October 2, 2005 03:40 PM
Linda,
Have you read What's the Matter With Kansas?-How the Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank? He speaks very well to the points you raise. He describes a "narcissm of victimhood" and a "shared martydom" that Kansans have used as an excuse to support the Republican agenda. He also discusses how corporations use people's Christinan faith as a sledge hammer to make them feel that they have to vote Republicann in order to preserve their way of life, even if their way of life has been on a steady decline. Corporations have developed the sense of "class struggle" and an anti-intellectualism in order to foster their political agenda. The topic of Religious creation theology vs. the science of darwinism is also touched on.
Truth I do understand your argument. But I just can not agree that this would do anything but harm.
It is handing the christian right the apparatus needed to rebreed the aryan wtfevertheyarefreaks...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The whole idea of a mandated religious... machine.. right there in the cirriculum is terrifying to me.
What keeps it in high schools? To think for a minute it would NOT be subjected to IMMEDIATE manipulation would be just ....
You would literally put it in motion with a course like you suggest.
Give the nuts an inch theyll take your very childrens souls and steal an empire right from under us to kill the people 'god' wants to do away with.
No way in hell.
What if the class were an elective?
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at October 2, 2005 03:55 PM
Matt,
If it were an elective on the college level-fine. But not in high school.
Truth, My reasons for wanting this in high school are stated above.. the idea of public education is an informed populace. College is too late simply because it doesn't reach the majority. To say that the "Big Ideas" philosophy, science, the arts, are only for college creates the very thing we don't want in a democracy.. an intellecual elite that can and does control the masses. Precisely what the neo-cons want.
If anybody wonders I did go to a public high school in the early part of the 60's (class of 67 in fact)And yes it was intellecually demanding, and I think the schools should be. This may be a differnet discussion, but there seems to me a general "dumbing down" in the schools, caused in part I agree by the desire to not "offend" anybody.
It really can be done. I know, because I changed to the Democratic party because of my religion, not in spite of it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. That's the people who could change the Red states to Blue ones. Kerry sort of knew that, but didn't go far enough with it.
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at October 2, 2005 03:40 PM
No, you're not the only one. I did, too. And have never regreted it.
Linda, I visit a website once every week or so, that has bloggers who are posting on how misrepresented Christianity has become because of neocon infiltration and misuse and abuse of the church.
Some of the titled thread articles and discussions are:
"Can Proponents of an Unjust War Justly Call Themselves Pro-Life?";
"Will Frist or Dobson Be Hoist By His Own Petard?";
"PNAC: This Neocon Agenda is Un-American and Un-Christian.";
"Downing St. Memo (Minute)- A Matter of Moral Priorities";
"Mark Twain - 'We Have Gone There To Conquer, Not to Redeem'";
"We Are Planning An Unprovoked Nuclear War - says "American Conservative" Magazine." (regarding Iran...)
Linda, there are other thinking Christians there that are not drinking the Kool-Aid. Any time you want to be assured that not everyone in the church is blindly following the nonsense, give it a peek-see.
http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php
Why dont we do this...
Why dont we urge churches to all invest in building one joint venture... A university wjere all religions and all religious histories are examined.
Let me tell you what they will say.
Not no but hell no.
Every organized religion on earth has good reason to suppress the religious secrets of thier orgins and past acts. By doing this kind of very thing would in itself form a new and ultimate religion.
It THREATENS THIER power over peoples lives.
Any kind of course in our public schools based on religion will immediately be only as good as the intentions of those who make the policy.
oncall- Nah, I figured all that stuff out myself. Even about the corporations.
Maybe I shoulda written a book earlier- I coulda made some money, huh?
Was it Emerson on Self Reliance that said that we only think other people's writings are so great because we already thought those things ourselves and the writer agrees with us.
'Tis true, isn't it?
Truth- thanks for that link. I'll check in on it often.
Christy,
Again, I said on second thought, the public school system could not support the outrage that would surely follow the implementation of a course on multiple religions in a public school setting.
Too much baggage.
It THREATENS THIER power over peoples lives.
Posted by: Christy at October 2, 2005 04:26 PM
Whaaa.....????
They want power over people's lives?
(As I look out my office window at the lemmings partaking of lunch together after their church service at a nearby restaurant.)
Posted by: Karen at October 2, 2005 11:42 AM
One of the most memorable projects from my otherwise-horrific sixth-grade year was an International Day where we each brought in foods and dressed in costumes and reported on different cultures. The lesson learned by all: There is value in all beliefs.
What a wonderful way to celebrate and learn about each others heritage. That is a way that the school can foster an open minded thought process in each and every student! But otherwise we have NO business teaching religion in public schools! It is not your child’s school that should be teaching the beliefs that you choose for your child to have. That is the Parent's job...Not the school system for any reason. Who would choose what religions would be taught it would truly be a fiasco. If a parent chooses to enroll their child into a private school then they must be responsible enough to know what the schools curriculum encompasses and see if they agree with that. If so then that is a choice that they can make but as to the public school system their should most definitely be a separation of church and state.
I work in an Elementary school everyday and interact with about 400 kids. I would not worry about the schools teaching religion in their curriculum. I can tell you that we do need to worry about the Government and NCLB dictating what are children are taught and for reasons we need not question. We are at a place where the schools are teaching these children to take tests...specifically the "assessments" because we have allowed our government to dictate what we do and do not teach them, because of course they know better than we do what these kids need to know and because of the accountability for these test scores our kids are now pitted against the teacher if they can't meet the scores. We now have teachers that are very hesitant to have special needs children in their class because the tests are very hard for these kids and some of them are just impossible to implement for instance blended sounds for Deaf children etc...This is just a peek at what is expected in our schools today.
We need to be very vigilant in watching our local school boards and know where they stand on the teaching of "Beliefs" to our children. But also help them to make this government realize that they have created a system in which they are trying their hardest to decide for you what is important for you child to be taught! Who would have thought just a few years ago that they would tie federal school funding to the ability of recruiters to follow your child around at school! Unbelievable!
Christy's post is a very haunting thought that if they choose to attach it somehow to NCLB your school has no recourse short of giving up their federal funding...pretty hard to do in these days and times. We must watch NCLB closely to know what they are up for our children's sake!
Before you know it they will be SO SURE the ONLY way our kids can REALLY UNDERSTAND religion is to get bibles with kindergarten enrollment.
Once you open Pandora’s Box, there is no going back.
Bottom line Religion does not belong in our school’s for any reason.
"A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. Yet he dismisses without notice his thought, because it is his. In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts: they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty. Great works of art have no more affecting lesson for us than this. They teach us to abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else, to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Yes, it was Emerson. And I'm glad I got to take that advanced English course in high school instead of one on comparative religions. I'll bet I wouldn't have remembered anything from the religion class, because I'd have already been blinded by my own beliefs. I'd have resented having to take the class, AND I would have also been embarrassed by my mother's visit to the School Board to protest the school offering the course. And then the other kids would have made fun of me. Oh well.
In Pennsylvania, It Was Religion vs. Science, Pastor vs. Ph.D., Evolution vs. the Half-Fish
SNIP
"There are two worldviews that are in conflict," Mr. Thompson said. "I do feel that even though Christians are 86 percent of the population, they have become second-class citizens."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/education/02evolution.html
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at October 2, 2005 04:28 PM
Linda,
I think all of us knew those things as well. What is really fascinating however are the "mechanics" of the process. We have a lot to learn.
Christians are not 86 percent of the population. People who CLAIM to be Christians are 86 percent of the population. Among those people are many who are agnostics or non-practicers of any religion, and simply afraid to say so in a survey. Why? Because they were raised in a religion that made them afraid to say they were NOT Christians.
And as far as being second-class citizens- fundamentaists only own the White House, the Senate and the House. What else do they want?
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 2, 2005 04:28 PM
These kind of courses are already being taught in a number of public schools. I saw a report on this kind of class on the Newshour a few years ago.
For the Anti-Evolutionists, Hope in High Places
SNIP
Scientists who have tried to claim the Vatican as an ally against evangelical creationists were taken aback, but this was not a veering to the right by a conservative new leader. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, sought to clarify the church's position in an Op-Ed article this past summer in The New York Times: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
SNIP
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/weekinreview/02johnson.html
All boy should hav eto take Home Ec and all girls should have to take Shop/ Industrial Arts
As far as religions go in school, hell no. Unless every religous leader signs an oath stating they will confine themselves and anyone of their faith caught proselytizing in school in any way, to solitary confinement inside of a governament run facility in Cuba, Afghanistan or Iraq. If they did that I guess I'd think about it.
Just to play devil's advocate then, the conclusion that some have reached then is that we should not offer an ELECTIVE course in comparative religion in any public high school because there is no guarantee of "impartiality" on behalf of the teacher / school board / curriculum director as far as the contents of the course are concerned.
I have to agree that not offering such education until college smacks of elitism. And I think that stating that it should not be offered in ANY public high school presumes too much. There may be some communities that feel that needs to be a part of a well-balanced education.
I do agree with the statements that it should not be mandatory and it does not belong in elementary or middle school curriculums.
Okay, We Give Up
There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.
Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either—so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.
Okay, We Give Up
MATT COLLINS
THE EDITORS editors@sciam.com
COPYRIGHT 2005 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.
Oncall,
We get Scientific American and both my husband and I laughed ruefully when we read that editorial. So sad that it was even necessary to print it.
Posted by: dwahzon at October 2, 2005 04:55 PM
DW,
I do not think it is elitist to offer electives of comparitive religion only in college. Not to be making snarky comments, but we have all heard of libraries. Why doesn't somebody who wishes to learn more about other religions just go to a library and ask their friendly librarian for some information?
fricO- I like the home-ec and shop/industrial arts idea. I grew up in a time when girls were required to take home ec and boys shop, and I always wanted to take shop instead.
I still remember that pocket that I sewed on that blouse- I ripped it off and resewed it so many times the blouse had pin holes in it. Then I decided the blouse didn't need a pocket after all.
Being a "girly-girl" never was my idea of any fun at all.
If we ever reach a place in this country where we are afraid to teach ideas as ideas we have given up.
Posted by: Ladytechie01 at October 2, 2005 05:01 PM
We may already be there.
Off Topic, but a real bombshell if accurate:
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/
Posted by: oncall at October 2, 2005 05:12 PM
If Bush was involved, was it God or the Devil who told him to do it...
Oncall, here's a link to listen/watch.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3320
Wow--the press is really hammering on the Hammer!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9557669/site/newsweek/
This article explains in a nutshell exactly WHY we must wrestle control back from the NeoCONS and the chicken "moderates" who let them rule the roost!
It's not only the "hammer" we have to worry about it's the WHOLE gang of extremists!
Ok .. WHY is Sports Illustrated breaking stories about suicide bombers exploding outside of OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY..??
???
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/ncaa/10/01/oklahoma.explosion.ap/
NORMAN, Okla. (AP) -- One person was killed in an explosion in a traffic circle about 100 yards from a packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma on Saturday night in what authorities were calling a suicide.
"We are apparently dealing with an individual suicide, which is under full investigation," OU President David Boren said in a statement.
There were no other reports of injuries. There was no word on the identity or sex of the person who died.
The loud noise of the explosion could be heard clearly inside Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, where 84,000 people were watching the Oklahoma Sooners play Kansas State.
Linda E, I was the exact opposite of you. Hated Shop/I.A, and loved Home Ec, I didnt do well at the sewing part but everything else was just my cup o tea. Had far and away the best cooking skills, could actually balance a budget with ease, designed ineterior spaces like it was art class.... yes I am male. I just couldn't stand all the alpha male energy and testosterone that shop would ellicit from the guys, seems like all they ever wanted to do was urinate around the lathe and band saws to mark their territory. Some more female students would've turned that around if by nothing else, showing those "guys" that a girl is every bit as industrious as their male counterparts.
Honestly I still think sexism and classism are far larger problems than religous inspired studies.. though I do see the problem with any religious studies being mandatory in a public school.
Talk about using a college education to it's fullest advantage, I took a semester of cooking and I took a course on the Bible as history.
Posted by: oncall at October 2, 2005 06:01 PM
I took a course on Bible as literature.
Well, I think I got you beat here, I also took bowling!
Rumsfeld must think we are the dumbest things on the planet:
Rumsfeld responded, ''It's a problem that's faced by police forces in every major city in our country, that criminals infiltrate and sign up to join the police force."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/30/general_backs_off_on_us_troop_cuts_in_iraq/?page=1
I took a course on the religious dimension of Ingmar Bergman's films. Of course, I attended a Catholic University with a lot of gay Jesuits.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/30/general_backs_off_on_us_troop_cuts_in_iraq/?page=2
Here is page two with the quote I was referring to.
Oh and remember I said Rummy announced 1/4th of the pentagons budget was missing on 9/10/2001, late in the evening..?
I misspoke.. I said 2.3 billion.
It was actually 2.6 TRILLION that was never accounted for.
Here is an interesting note. The comptroller for the Pentagon at that time was none other than the man who called for 'a new pearl harbor' in the Project for the New American Century doctrine
http://www.dod.gov/speeches/2001/s20010716-secdef2.html
Smip..
SEC. RUMSFELD:
As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.
We are told we cant hire CPAs...isnt that so...
Convienant
2.6 TRILLION dollars.. After rummy annouced it went poof the WTC was attacked some 16/18 hours later.
2.6 TRILLION
$2,600,000,000,000.00
Thats an awful lot of cocoanuts
Thinking about what Stephanopoulos said this morning. Is this another example of Rove playing the media, just like he did to Dan Rather? Will Stephanopoulos be forced to eat his words? Was this all done as a way to avoid an indictment of anybody in the Bush administration? Just thinking out loud here......
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at October 2, 2005 04:53 PM
Where? In Blue America?
Someone told me once ' I just can not believe that anyone would kill our own people for money'
WHY ELSE WOULD YOU KILL 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE?
Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at October 2, 2005 06:33 PM
Don't remember where the school was. Maybe California.
How can Stephanopoulis be so casual in the way he mentioned that a source had told him the president was involved in those discussions? I just watched the video, and George Will didn't even respond to what he said- GS just let it slip off his tongue so casually. This is impeachment fodder!!!!!! He has to know that.
And is that why the special prosecuter wouldn't talk to reporters yesterday after Miller's testimony? I thought he was just angry. I figured the woman just flat out lied to him- especially since she only told him "what my conscience would allow." I figure that's code for I lied through my teeth.
Maybe the truth is he's playing his cards close to the vest because he knows he has a bombshell. I know the investigation was supposed to end on the 28th. Is there any chance it's all over now?
Oh God- it would be so good to just show the blissfully ignorant what a stinking liar their hero is. I can't wait until the results are in from this thing.
Why doesn't somebody who wishes to learn more about other religions just go to a library and ask their friendly librarian for some information?
Posted by: oncall at October 2, 2005 05:00 PM
Most indoctrinated people accept that their religion is the "right" one, and do not have a desire or need to research other religions.
If world-religion was taught in high school it would afford all to learn a little about other religions and customs, and hopefully help people become more tolerant of differences. That would also hopefully help people to put the world in perspective, and realize there are options other than the ones they were indoctrinated into.
I am interested to know where the comparative religion classes are that are currently being taught, and what income brackets the families of the students taking those classes are in.
Truth- I don't know where they're currently being taught, but someone mentioned that they have comparative religion classes in schools in Canada. I just got an e-mail from a teacher friend of mine in Vancouver though, and she said not in that area. And also, that she would object to them if they were.
Nice intelligent discussion to come back to!
& here is another source suggesting Bush himself could be implicated in funny business. I noticed the After Downing Street one was posted. This comes from Alan in Seattle and it made my day!!
I am supposed to be way jet lagged and instead I'm just flying, thinking of men in orange suits!! & Frog marching!!
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it's a manageable one for the White House especially if we don't know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
This would explain why Bush
spent">http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/index1.html">spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to " get to the bottom of it."
As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanag