Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I took a comparative religion course as an elective in high school.
So I don't have an issue with religiously based electives, but I would worry that kids who don't take it may be bullied or pressured to do so by teachers and administrators.
I also would rather have like a comparative religion course. I had not learned much about many lesser known religious practices until taking that class and it was very informative in regards to the history of religion and I think a lot of high school students, even Christians would enjoy such a course.
I understand perfectly well what elective means, electives on religious teachings do not belong in public high schools. So I take it you have no issue with religious themes being taught as long as they are not mandatory, using that logic they should also offer Islam, Buddhism and others to balance it out.
We are falling behind other countries in math and science not to mention languages and this is this takes on importance, please spare me.
I don't mind electives on religion. Religion is an important topic. It's a source of tremendous social and cultural influence. And in the United States, Christianity is the dominant religion. So scholarly study of the Bible and other facets of Christianity are perfectly acceptable, particularly when offered as a voluntary elective. I think it's important that the school monitor that the course doesn't become a social tool to pressure students regarding their religious beliefs, but the school is within its rights to offer the course, and not required to offer courses to balance things out.
I do mind Mr Green's stated purpose, to prove the Bible true, with this course. That's exceeding the educational agenda, and since he finances the course, his agenda has to be considered with respect to the course's objectivity. That objectivity is required in public school religion classes, because the purpose of the class must be to study a subject, not to promote a religion. Mr Green wants to promote a religion.
So, schools should not talk about the Ottoman Empire or the Holocaust?
This is a history course.
As much as you may want to you simply cannot teach history without mentioning religion.
Try presenting much of Western Civilization and never once referencing the Church or the Bible.
Do you want children to be ignorant about why things occur?
As the books of the three monotheistic religions that have greatly influenced the last 3000 or so years of human history, such electives for both the Bible and Quran should be offered to provide valuable indepth context.
Absolutely not! Religion (even though I believe it all to be hokum ) is vitally important to history and sociology. We should be studying it, including studying various holy books. Having a basic grasp on the Bible is important for understanding western culture, church history is essentially European history for the better part of 2000 years. It cannot be ignored.
If, however, the proposed course is what Mr. Green described it to be, then it is not a history class, but an apologetics class.
"Green explained that his goals for a high school curriculum were to show that the Bible is true, that it’s good and that its impact, “whether (upon) our government, education, science, art, literature, family ... when we apply it to our lives in all aspects of our life, that it has been good.”
Examining the Bible as literature, examining it's impacts on various cultures is great, but once you start trying ot assert the theology, it crosses the line. As long as the curriculum and the teacher don't cross that line, it should be fine. I highly doubt it will last long, becasue if a teacher starts to teach what Biblical scholars (not theologians) actually think about the history of the Bible, parent will complain and it will be shut down post-haste. None of the proponents of this kind of class want to hear that Noah is derived from Sumerian Mythology, and that YHWH started as a member of a pantheon, and was conflated with El over time. If the differences between the Yawist, the Elohist, and the Priestly writer were discussed, or the uncertain provenance of new testament authorship were taught, this class would be over after one semester. I think a real, critical examination of biblical history and its influence would be great, but if it assumes the truth of the Bible as a basis, then it is unconstitutional...
Absolutely not! Religion (even though I believe it all to be hokum ) is vitally important to history and sociology. We should be studying it, including studying various holy books. Having a basic grasp on the Bible is important for understanding western culture, church history is essentially European history for the better part of 2000 years. It cannot be ignored.
If, however, the proposed course is what Mr. Green described it to be, then it is not a history class, but an apologetics class.
"Green explained that his goals for a high school curriculum were to show that the Bible is true, that it’s good and that its impact, “whether (upon) our government, education, science, art, literature, family ... when we apply it to our lives in all aspects of our life, that it has been good.”
Examining the Bible as literature, examining it's impacts on various cultures is great, but once you start trying ot assert the theology, it crosses the line. As long as the curriculum and the teacher don't cross that line, it should be fine. I highly doubt it will last long, becasue if a teacher starts to teach what Biblical scholars (not theologians) actually think about the history of the Bible, parent will complain and it will be shut down post-haste. None of the proponents of this kind of class want to hear that Noah is derived from Sumerian Mythology, and that YHWH started as a member of a pantheon, and was conflated with El over time. If the differences between the Yawist, the Elohist, and the Priestly writer were discussed, or the uncertain provenance of new testament authorship were taught, this class would be over after one semester. I think a real, critical examination of biblical history and its influence would be great, but if it assumes the truth of the Bible as a basis, then it is unconstitutional...
Right. Sometimes people have to move there and witness for themselves the religious right lunacy that goes on before they can believe it's actually happening. For instance, in some counties on any given day, try ordering a margarita to go with your Mexican dinner, assuming such county has a Mexican restaurant.
Only fairly recently, did people in my county decide it might be okay with God, after all, to legalize liquor by the drink on Sunday.
They should not be teaching the bible in public schools.
I disagree - they should. It's an influential document for Western civilization. But under the 1st amendment, they can't preach, nor should they. I am sure this suggestion takes that into account, right?
Quote:
If they give the option, then why not learn about our savior?
So, schools should not talk about the Ottoman Empire or the Holocaust?
This is a history course.
As much as you may want to you simply cannot teach history without mentioning religion.
Try presenting much of Western Civilization and never once referencing the Church or the Bible.
Do you want children to be ignorant about why things occur?
As the books of the three monotheistic religions that have greatly influenced the last 3000 or so years of human history, such electives for both the Bible and Quran should be offered to provide valuable indepth context.
Yes religion is a part of history, many religions in addition to Christianity are a part of history but there is a need to devote one course to the history of the bible, in the bible belt no less.
Speaking of ignorance maybe it would be more meaningful to teach students that are already saturated in Christianity alternate religions to make them more well rounded. If there were a burning need to teach the history of a religion surely it would make them more well rounded.
"Teaching the Bible?" Or teaching the Bible as history or as literature. Many schools, especially colleges and universities do this.
Teaching the Bible history, I understand this is done at the college level but this does not belong in public high schools. I don't agree with it to begin with but a even a bible history course could go in a number of directions, especially being developed by Steve Green.
it's an elective, don't want to take it? problem solved, they had it when I went to school, i never took it so whats the big deal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) is vitally important to history and sociology. We should be studying it, including studying various holy books. Having a basic grasp on the Bible is important for understanding western culture, church history is essentially European history for the better part of 2000 years. It cannot be ignored.
