The all new, totally accepted, bigotry thread - "Blame a Christian"

[GhostWriter16]

Judaism and Islam are major western religions? That's news to me.

Or heck, Christianity? It was born in Jerusalem, and there are plenty of Eastern Christians...

I'd already be happy if students were taught what other religions actually believe in.

I'd be cool with that, but not with Form's idea.

 

[GoodGame]

No, sorry. I think that Christianity does bear some moral responsibility for portraying some OT characters as heroic or saintly.

You cannot worship something that used to be evil, call it unchanging, and then expect a moral pass.

Which ones?

Also "Christianity" as a cultural monolith probably has some problems since there is diversity within the definition.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'll quit blaming you when you

1) Quit claiming to be morally superior to me.

2) Quit trying to make being a non-Christian socially difficult.

 

[Formaldehyde]

He's mocking Formaldehyde, who said that Islam can be considered a Western Religion because there are small Islamic minorities today in what would be considered "Western Countries". So by that metric, Christianity is a Far Eastern AND Native American religion because currently there are Chinese and Native American Christians.

Islam is overwhelmingly predominate in Albania and Kosovo. Aren't they European countries?

And Christianity was founded in the Middle East.

I'd be cool with that, but not with Form's idea.

Why? That is what is taught in any collegiate-level comparative religion or Western Civ course. Why shouldn't high school students be exposed to the facts as well?

 

[peter grimes]

Dangerous ideas must be squelched - especially when there's a risk they might be presented to impressionable minds.

 

[_random_]

Or heck, Christianity? It was born in Jerusalem, and there are plenty of Eastern Christians...

Its impact on Western Civilization (whatever that means) has been significant enough that I think you can safely say it's a "Western religion" as well as a "Middle Eastern religion" and an "African religion."

 

[Formaldehyde]

According to many Islamophobes, the future of Europe is now being directly threatened by that other "Middle Eastern religion". And Africa is just as much Christian as it is Muslim.

 

[Core Imposter]

I regret deeply the many intemperate, intolerant and often incoherent remarks I have made here. Frankly, I struggle too little to restrain my primitive urges. It is a failing that reflects badly on me and should.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I regret deeply the many intemperate, intolerant and often incoherent remarks I have made here. Frankly, I struggle too little to restrain my primitive urges. It is a failing that reflects badly on me and should.

Grouphug!

On the other hand, admission of your weaknesses reflect goodly on you

 

[Akka]

Grouphug!

On the other hand, admission of your weaknesses reflect goodly on you

Only if it actually leads to change.
It's easy to say "I'm not perfect". The hard part is to actually improve.

 

[kochman]

Relgious Education was compulsory when I was at school up to age 16. It was a big skive though, and we learnt about all the mainstream religions.

This is common in Europe, I understand...
I don't agree with it though, because there are many religions, so who decides which make it into the curriculum? What's the criteria?
And, what is a religion? Buddhism, for example, could be considered less of a religion and just a personal philosophy...
And, how can we ensure that each religion gets an "equal" treatment from all the many individual teachers? This part is pretty much impossible...

 

[Flying Pig]

This is common in Europe, I understand...
I don't agree with it though, because there are many religions, so who decides which make it into the curriculum? What's the criteria?
And, what is a religion? Buddhism, for example, could be considered less of a religion and just a personal philosophy...
And, how can we ensure that each religion gets an "equal" treatment from all the many individual teachers? This part is pretty much impossible...

'We can't do it perfectly' doesn't mean 'we shouldn't do it at all'.

who decides which make it into the curriculum? What's the criteria?

Essentially, number of adherents, and therefore how likely the pupils are to encounter it.

And, what is a religion? Buddhism, for example, could be considered less of a religion and just a personal philosophy...

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values

And, how can we ensure that each religion gets an "equal" treatment from all the many individual teachers? This part is pretty much impossible..

We have something called the National Curriculum for that; teachers are told what they need to teach their students. In the same way, that's what stops a History teacher particularly interested in the Wars of the Roses from neglecting everything else.

 

[kochman]

'We can't do it perfectly' doesn't mean 'we shouldn't do it at all'.

I think it does... I don't need the government teaching my kids about religions...

Essentially, number of adherents, and therefore how likely the pupils are to encounter it.

What about impact? Such as Judaism? It doesn't have that many followers... but its impact is huge...

We have something called the National Curriculum for that; teachers are told what they need to teach their students. In the same way, that's what stops a History teacher particularly interested in the Wars of the Roses from neglecting everything else.

I lean toward separation of Church and State, something I've been brought up believing in, and prefer.
History is able to be looked at objectively... religion rarely is... I really don't want the government telling me what's ok and what isn't... It is fine to make sure that we are spending time on more than just the Wars of the Roses, but... it just gets sticky when the government is now talking about religion.

I do believe there should be elective classes that cover the subject of course, just not state mandated and designed classes (whoever controls the state at the time, that is to say) for graduation...

 

[Core Imposter]

The principal of the separation of Church and State is often misunderstood and sometimes intentionally misused.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think it does... I don't need the government teaching my kids about religions...

Unfortunately, parents as a group have proven themselves woefully unable to do it: not helped by the fact that 99% of them don't know much beyond the most rudimentary facts about unfamiliar beliefs, and often think that they know more than they do. I don't see the argument, beyond the instinctive 'hands off my freedoms' - nobody's arrogant enough to say that they don't need the Government to teach their children science, but for some reason they assume that they know it all with regard to religions.

What about impact? Such as Judaism? It doesn't have that many followers... but its impact is huge...

Judaism's on there, especially in the UK, which has a small but significant Jewish population. Most people can expect to meet Judaism, either in the flesh or through (mostly American) TV, so we teach our children the basics of what it's all about.

I lean toward separation of Church and State, something I've been brought up believing in, and prefer.

Nobody's saying anything different - schools are not obliged (in fact, they're encouraged not) to push a specific religous agenda. Religious Education is about teaching them about different belief systems in an objective way.

History is able to be looked at objectively... religion rarely is... I really don't want the government telling me what's ok and what isn't... It is fine to make sure that we are spending time on more than just the Wars of the Roses, but... it just gets sticky when the government is now talking about religion.

The point is that religious education (nowadays; in my day it meant bible study and often learning passages by heart) is an objective study, because it doesn't make claims about truth. It's simply a matter of 'this is what these people believe', and as it gets more advanced it merges into and eventually is subsumed by Philosophy and Ethics.

I do believe there should be elective classes that cover the subject of course, just not state mandated and designed classes (whoever controls the state at the time, that is to say) for graduation...

I don't think anyone should be out there ignorant of all belief systems save their own.

 

[kochman]

Unfortunately, parents as a group have proven themselves woefully unable to do it: not helped by the fact that 99% of them don't know much beyond the most rudimentary facts about unfamiliar beliefs, and often think that they know more than they do. I don't see the argument, beyond the instinctive 'hands off my freedoms' - nobody's arrogant enough to say that they don't need the Government to teach their children science, but for some reason they assume that they know it all with regard to religions.

Science is empirical... that's a pretty big difference.

Judaism's on there, especially in the UK, which has a small but significant Jewish population. Most people can expect to meet Judaism, either in the flesh or through (mostly American) TV, so we teach our children the basics of what it's all about.

Ok, so, how about in a country where there isn't a big enough Jewish community? Such, as, say... Germany? My only point was, the criteria for inclusion isn't really that clear cut.

Nobody's saying anything different - schools are not obliged (in fact, they're encouraged not) to push a specific religous agenda. Religious Education is about teaching them about different belief systems in an objective way.

But therein lay the problem. It isn't totally unavoidable, per se, that individual teachers stray from the approved line...
But, when it comes to something so incredibly controversial!... I don't want whoever is in power this year to decide.

The point is that religious education (nowadays; in my day it meant bible study and often learning passages by heart) is an objective study, because it doesn't make claims about truth. It's simply a matter of 'this is what these people believe', and as it gets more advanced it merges into and eventually is subsumed by Philosophy and Ethics.

Why can't it just be an elective?

I don't think anyone should be out there ignorant of all belief systems save their own.

Nor do I, but whose choice is it?
We seem to be doing ok in the US without such courses...

Let's get down to the nitty gritty here... how in depth are we going for each religion? How about the branches of it... take Christianity... 3 major branches... RCC, Protestant, Orthodox... what about the others? What about the branches within Protestantism? How about the branches within Islam? Sufi? Sunni? Shia? Etc... Who decides? What is the decision based on? How can we ensure we aren't offending people? Do the Sikh make the list? They have a ton of people, but not a huge impact outside of India... What about Bahai? Do you see my point... it goes on and on.
How can we be sure what they are teaching is fact with all the divisions within a religion? Fact for a wahabi muslim is quite different than a sufi... for a mormon, quite different than for a Jehovah's Witness vs a RC vs a Baptist...

 

[Flying Pig]

Science is empirical... that's a pretty big difference.

So is RE

Ok, so, how about in a country where there isn't a big enough Jewish community? Such, as, say... Germany? My only point was, the criteria for inclusion isn't really that clear cut.

Then you wouldn't need to teach it! The criteria for any subject isn't clear-cut! How much history should a 16-year-old know? Is it more important that he knows about the Battle of Hastings or the Battle of the Somme?

But therein lay the problem. It isn't totally unavoidable, per se, that individual teachers stray from the approved line... But, when it comes to something so incredibly controversial!... I don't want whoever is in power this year to decide.

It's grossly unprofessional; I know we've got some teachers on here and I'm sure they'd be insulted at that suggestion. In the same way, a Politics teacher could try to press his own political views onto his class.

Why can't it just be an elective?

Because the people who benefit most from learning it are those who think they don't need to - you know the sort, the skinheads who turn up to BNP rallies convinced that all Muslims hate women and the West, or that all Jews are money-grubbing capitalists, and so on.

Nor do I, but whose choice is it?

The Government educates the people; it's the Government's choice what they learn, advised by the people themselves.

We seem to be doing ok in the US without such courses...

Oh, yes, everyone in the US has an excellent understanding of other cultures and religions... that's what it's about; the sort of understanding which fights prejudice and the like, because it's much easier to hate what you don't understand.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty here... how in depth are we going for each religion? How about the branches of it... take Christianity... 3 major branches... RCC, Protestant, Orthodox... what about the others? What about the branches within Protestantism? How about the branches within Islam? Sufi? Sunni? Shia? Etc... Who decides? What is the decision based on? How can we ensure we aren't offending people? Do the Sikh make the list? They have a ton of people, but not a huge impact outside of India... What about Bahai? Do you see my point... it goes on and on.How can we be sure what they are teaching is fact with all the divisions within a religion? Fact for a wahabi muslim is quite different than a sufi... for a mormon, quite different than for a Jehovah's Witness vs a RC vs a Baptist...

See my earlier point about History, or any subject for that matter (particularly the sciences, where almost everything you're taught at an elementary level is very slightly wrong) - this isn't an argument.

 

[kochman]

So is RE

No, it isn't.

It's grossly unprofessional

But unavoidable.

Because the people who benefit most from learning it are those who think they don't need to - you know the sort, the skinheads who turn up to BNP rallies convinced that all Muslims hate women and the West, or that all Jews are money-grubbing capitalists, and so on.

Then why do you still have skins in England?

The Government educates the people; it's the Government's choice what they learn, advised by the people themselves.{/quote]
In the USA we believe in a government for the people, of the people, by the people... a bottom up approach, rather than the traditional top down approach of Europe... it's a fundamental difference.

Oh, yes, everyone in the US has an excellent understanding of other cultures and religions... that's what it's about; the sort of understanding which fights prejudice and the like, because it's much easier to hate what you don't understand.

As I said, we seem to be doing ok... you still have hate groups in England and everywhere else that teaches "empirical religion"... and overall we are quite tolerant of different faiths in the USA.

See my earlier point about History, or any subject for that matter (particularly the sciences, where almost everything you're taught at an elementary level is very slightly wrong) - this isn't an argument.

Well, the point remains, who decides... since it is subjective what matters... unless you just make local population the basis... which would often get the Jews out of the mix,despite being founding grounds for Christianity and Islam...

 

[Flying Pig]

No, it isn't.

At the very least it's no more subjective than any other humanities subject. That's also not an argument for not teaching it.

But unavoidable.

I very neatly set out how teachers can teach subjects on which they have strong views without forcing those views on their students, and you seem to have totally ignored me

Then why do you still have skins in England?

Again! Just because we can't do a perfect job doesn't mean that we don't do anything at all. We still have bad drivers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying to teach people to drive properly.

In the USA we believe in a government for the people, of the people, by the people... a bottom up approach, rather than the traditional top down approach of Europe... it's a fundamental difference.

Except that there are several issues (road safety, for example) upon which you realise that the vast majority of people cannot be trusted to get it right themselves. This is the same

As I said, we seem to be doing ok... you still have hate groups in England and everywhere else that teaches "empirical religion"... and overall we are quite tolerant of different faiths in the USA.

After the whole 'Barack Obama is a Muslim' debacle, I beg to differ.

Well, the point remains, who decides... since it is subjective what matters... unless you just make local population the basis... which would often get the Jews out of the mix,despite being founding grounds for Christianity and Islam...

As interesting as this is, it isn't the point - those decisions are taken by the politicians and educationalists who work out exactly what each student needs to know, just as they do for every other subject.

 

[kochman]

At the very least it's no more subjective than any other humanities subject. That's also not an argument for not teaching it.

It is, because it is about people's faith, it is another topic that people get too excited about... There are a lot of topics you just don't force on people.

I very neatly set out how teachers can teach subjects on which they have strong views without forcing those views on their students, and you seem to have totally ignored me.

No, I didn't ignore you, the teachers in question ignore such rules... it happens all the time. On other issues, not a huge deal... but, let's say, you're a staunch religion X... your kid gets exposed to a teacher who is biased, the kids don't realize it, and the teacher gets away with it for a bit... well, now your kid has decided religion Y is superior and converts... How would that make you feel? Kids are impressionable.

Again! Just because we can't do a perfect job doesn't mean that we don't do anything at all. We still have bad drivers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother trying to teach people to drive properly.

Well, the skin problem is getting pretty big over there, isn't it? I am not sure of that, it could just be media hype... but... that's what I've seen from limited sources.
Again, people's private, individual beliefs are different than public safety.

Except that there are several issues (road safety, for example) upon which you realise that the vast majority of people cannot be trusted to get it right themselves. This is the same

Personal, private beliefs versus public safety for a priveledge? Not hardly the same.

After the whole 'Barack Obama is a Muslim' debacle, I beg to differ.

How empirical an argument. I won't even address it further as it means ZILCH.

As interesting as this is, it isn't the point - those decisions are taken by the politicians and educationalists who work out exactly what each student needs to know, just as they do for every other subject.

My point is, I don't want the prevailing powers at the moment to decide... that time could be spent on learning other topics that aren't so interpersonally controversial and actually prepare the student for something other than debate.

Again, what you think is ok teaching about Christianity... a mormom likely wouldn't... and vice versa... So, what some politician and teacher panel decides is sure to piss someone off... why do that?

I'll stick with individual freedom.