Georgia Board of Ed & Bible Classes

An earlier poster talked about how he believed that a religion class should be taught to all schools. I agree with that, but yes, I would think that it's the churches who should be supplying this education.

Of course, thinking about it as a choice factor, I don't think I'd mind Bible study being offered as an elective in high school. I took Greek mythology in college as an elective because I found it interesting.

And before anyone jumps on me, yes, there's a difference, and these classes could be used as a club-over-the-head-type tool for the Jerry Falwells of the world. But I'm always the optimistic one.

I guess I'd like to see how the classes were actually taught--would it be a class of worship, or would it be a class of learning?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Mar 8 2007, 07:19 PM) [snapback]402591[/snapback]</div>

This is not good, but at least give us a cite so that we can read it for ourselves. My feeling is that if the classes are historical in nature, no harm done, if it is doctrine or anything of a similar nature then start the count down the end is near!

Wildkow

 

These are not bible classes I.E. theology.

"The bill approved overwhelmingly in the Legislature was tailored to make it clear the courses would not stray into religious teaching, Williams said.

The measure calls for the courses to be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students.""

These are Language Arts classes, I.E. Literature, with the bible as the text.

It may be a fine line but there it is.

The classes are not required and schools may chose to offer them or not. The School Board is simply offering a course number.

Georgia close to OKing bible classes.

"On a list of classes approved Thursday by the Georgia Board of Education are Literature and History of the Old Testament Era, and Literature and History of the New Testament Era. The classes, approved last year by the Legislature, will not be required, and the state's 180 school systems can decide for themselves whether to offer them."

Instructors can choose to supplement the textbook with other relevant resources.

"During last year's campaign-period legislative session, Democrats surprised majority Republicans by introducing a plan to teach the Bible in public schools. Republicans, who control both chambers, quickly responded with their own version, which passed and was signed into law by Gov. Sonny Perdue."

I'm sure so the Republicans could take the credit.

 

I have no problem with bible classes in school as long as they are electives. And, I mean all religions not just the one I believe. If a student has an interest and it is affordable for the school then teach it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Mar 8 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]402621[/snapback]</div>

As I thought. [attachmentid=6820] Huskers you attempt to disparage a group of people that had nothing to do with this is shot down by your own ilk. Now that is just too funny! :lol: You and Daniel should get together that would be a real h00t! [attachmentid=6821]

Wildkow

p.s. Your next post/reply should reveal a lot about your character.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hjon71 @ Mar 8 2007, 08:51 PM) [snapback]402622[/snapback]</div>

Does that include teachings about Creation? Cause if it does, BOY! are you going to get an earful from this crowd.

Wildkow

 

I'm all for diversity in education. As electives they can teach the bible, ID, wicca, or evolution. In elementary schools is becomes more problematic because of the impressionable nature of the very young.

 

Unlike you wildkow, we aren't going to blindly support any random view from a friend... and therein lies the difference between a liberal and conservative. We actually have the capability to criticize ourselves/positions/views.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 8 2007, 09:58 PM) [snapback]402625[/snapback]</div>

I don't think there is a problem with teaching creation stories (from any religion) in a comparative religion or literature class. I do, however, take great issue with the idea of teaching it in a science class. Science is science, religion is religion, and never the twain shall meet.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 8 2007, 09:39 PM) [snapback]402639[/snapback]</div>

Your characterization of me is specious and ignorant. If you look back over my posts you will see that on more than one occasion, I have admitted mistakes, apologized for crudeness and poked fun at myself for mistakes and just stupid statements. As I said earlier today to a different poster your reply to this post will reveal a lot about your character or lack thereof. I don't expect a lot and I don't think I will be surprised. <_<

Widlkow

 

Heh, speak for yourself. I am curious by what kinds of hypocritical goodies I would find in your post history... but lucky for you I don't feel like it.

 

Comparative religion classes are a good idea. Teaching about only one religion, when that one is the dominant local religion, is a very bad idea. Students should be exposed to the full variety of beliefs of many different cultures. And they should also be exposed to the arguments against believing uncritically in any construct.

 

Well said, Daniel. A class dedicated to teaching about one religion is bad (even if it's not preaching, teaching the history of only one religion is still pretty bad) if there aren't the options for a similar class covering every religion. Seeing as that really isn't practical, a class dealing with a broad overview of religion in general would be excellent. Something where each religion gets it's one week to shine in the class. They can cover history, do a comparative analysis on the belief systems (believe it or not, most religions believe in pretty much the same ideals), and at the end of the week have a leader from that religion in the area come in to answer questions. You would have to be careful to ensure that no preaching or preference was given to any one belief, and that no belief was belittled or left out. Of course, in such a class you would also have to cover those who don't believe in religion in different forms (atheist, agnostic, etc).

Having an understanding of different religions definitely gives an individual the ability to appreciate those whose beliefs are different, promotes religious tolerance, and helps society in general to move towards more acceptance and less hatred.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 8 2007, 10:19 PM) [snapback]402664[/snapback]</div>

Amen

As an aside, the tendency to 'shove religion down the throats of the young' is, I believe why the Catholic church is in such trouble. They forced my generation against our will to attend and now, 40 years later find they have a huge 'fallen Catholic' mess. The same could happen if these classes become a vehicle for fundamentalists to 'convert'. They may turn off for ever more people than they convert. One can present the material and allow those interested to pursue further. One never knows who may pursue later in life, unless, of course, like the Catholics, they force the laity to 'turn against', forever, the teachings. All good things in all good time. Also, because, at some point in one's life, one may wish to pursue some sort of spirituality, and if one has been 'turned off' to Christian teachings, one may find the only path is non-Christian spirituality. From a fundamentalist's point of view, damage done, devil worship fills the vacuum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 9 2007, 07:33 AM) [snapback]402782[/snapback]</div>

Your just opening the door here which is not a good idea. Religion belongs in the Church and education on the other subjects belongs in the school and never the twain shall meet.

Wildkow

 

A vast majority of the violence and hatred we see around the world every day is due to religious intolerance. It's due to a lack of understanding of another's beliefs, or a desire to have a particular set of beliefs heard. The world would be a better place if education on all belief systems was made available.

Saying religion belongs in the church is like saying science belongs in the laboratory, literature in the library, and History in the stuffy dig sites in Egypt. Poetry belongs in the coffee houses, music in the concert halls.

All of these things that are currently taught in schools have a profound impact on peoples lives. None of them occur only in one type of venue. Neither does religion. There is no reason a broad spectrum religion class wouldn't be a good elective.

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." Such a class, when made available but not required, and when executed in such a way as to show no preference or intolerance of any religion, does not violate this important amendment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 9 2007, 09:58 AM) [snapback]402879[/snapback]</div>

Excellent reply!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ewhanley @ Mar 9 2007, 12:50 AM) [snapback]402648[/snapback]</div>

I couldn't DISagree more. I think God is the ultimate scientist, so TRUE religion and TRUE science *should* harmonize, not conflict.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ewhanley @ Mar 9 2007, 12:50 AM)</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Mar 9 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]402921[/snapback]</div>

No, I've got problems with that one. Being a scientist is by definition seeking to understand an unknown, using scientific method; what's a "god" not know that it will apply scientific method toward finding out? While there are almost as many definitions of "god" as people (see my earlier poll), none that I know of posits a "god" that's ignorant, that has yet to discover something it didn't already know.

Now, if you meant that IF "god" needed to find something out it didn't already know, it would use scientific method, that's saying something different: that "god" endorses science over uninformed speculation, and by endorsing science, would encourage a melding of science and religion, presumably by removing from religion that parts of it that are uninformed speculation.

Doing that, however, would eliminate nine tenths of what most religion is, leaving only the part of it that is mere worship and adoration. And worship and adoration are as removed from the pursuit of knowledge as kissing your spouse is as removed from looking up the word "kiss" in the dictionary - they're completely unrelated endeavors.

So science and religion don't even intersect, let alone converge.

Now many look upon religion as an "alternative" "way of knowing" to fill in where science has failed to satisfy. Scientific method has uncloaked many of nature's mysteries, but some mysteries persist, even after centuries of dedicated scientific inquiry (the problem of human self consciousness, for example, or why we find it so difficult to get along with each other), so there's suggestive evidence that maybe the scientific method isn't the ONLY path to discovery - some other paths may be necessary, such as a "spiritual" approach.

But again, even if religion were to prove a useful "alternative" path to knowledge, it would have to remain separate from science because science simply doesn't work where the religion does. (I don't agree with the idea that religion IS a useful "alternative", incidentally, but it's a logically defensible concept - and I would be persuaded of its validity if a "religion" ever emerged that could consistently and accurately predict outcomes, as science is able to do, proving it has discovered an aspect of how nature works that science was incapable of doing).

For now, however, I see science and religion as irrevocably separate endeavors, and 90% of current religion diametrically opposed to science, so I'll reinforce ewhanley's "never the twain shall meet."

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

I liked how my high school handled it. We had a class called "humanities", a portion of it was a look at the major religions, how they "evolved", how they differ, etc. This is good stuff people should know. Raised, catholic, I didn't know till Humanities that Islam branched off the old testiment just like Christianity did. That is historically important. It's just important that said teachers do not say "this religion is right and the rest are wrong". For the most part I don't think they do. Just like most good science teachers don't say the bible is wrong when they discuss science.