Politics The Elephant in the room...The GOP today

I have know problem when a teacher has personally held views on a subject and clearly states that to the class. There is a time and place for that. So if a teacher states that their personal view is that Shakespeare is the most important author in human history and, in an age appropriate setting and appropriate course, presents their case that is fine with me. If they do that with Christianity, Islam or anyother religion that is also fine with me - conditional on grades not being dependent on agreeing with the teachers personal views. So if my response to the teacher is that Mark Twain is the most important author in human history and I present my case, my grade should be based on how I present my case. If I get an F simply based on my personal view, that would be a problem with me.

I think we should have national and state standards for education. Further more, in my personal view ours schools are trying to do too much - we should not teach religion in public schools in the primary grades. Public schools should teach reading, writing, math, civics, history, and basic science.

My conservative response is to allow parents to have choice and if they want to choose a different school, let the public funding go with the child. If the liberal response is government control - then have national/state standards and have the government take control of schools not meeting those standards. Either way pick one and do something to fix broken schools.

People who graduate from private religious schools or home schooling seem to do just fine - teaching religion or have that focus is not a problem.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 5:01 PM ---

His writings were topical to his times and the way people in his times viewed the world and world history - I see more to his writings than you. His writings provide insight on a number of topics in my view. I am not going to force the issue, because I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other but I will say that I see overlap with Shakespeare or the Bible in many subjects - depending on the age of the student.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 5:16 PM ---

Sometimes there is a very thin line between fantasy and theory. We do not actually know how the continents moved since the formation of the earth, it is all theory. If someone is stating this as factually one way or the other, that is incorrect.

Something close to what you describe actually happened. My son is interracial and in 2nd grade a fellow student recited the story about how in the Bible is says that dark skin people are inferior in class. I am not sure how you think anger would have help in that situation, but I talked to my son, I talked to his teacher and eventually I met the fellow student and his parents - they were actually nice people. they eventually did some "we are all colors of the rainbow" thing in class. so don't misunderstand that just because I don't get angry I would deal with a problem. In my experience, I find anger simple makes things worse.

 

Well, I guess I missed the point.

I agree that one theory should not be taught at the expense of another - on any subject. I understand that every little theory can be covered in a class given time restraints - but I would certainly cover creationism and evolution - public school or not. Are you saying you would not cover creationism? Is it your opinion that creationism is not a credible theory?

 

Ace, once again, as is often the case, you are ignorantly or intentionally avoiding the issue and the concerns regarding a state that allows teaching the Bible, ONLY the Bible, as literature or an historical document, but in fact, is allowing the teaching of extreme religious doctrine in public schools and with support of the local schools boards, state dept of education, the legislature and the governor.

 

I doubt anyone said there has been no geological movement - after-all we know we experience earthquakes and landslide, etc. And just like creationism, geological theories start to fall apart a certain points. for example to say that North America was once connected to Africa infers that they spit, are no longer connected and something filled the gap. Where did this something come from? Did this something cause other areas to actually connect? It is nice to look at a globe and visualize that oh, these pieces sorta connect but that can easily be fantasy just like when I focus really hard while looking at my favorite mountain and see my grand-fathers face.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 12:35 PM ---

I don't think we will agree on what constitutes the differences between theological and scientific theories. And give we won't agree on subjects were the difference is not clear, I say error on the side of giving more information not less.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 12:39 PM ---

I do not support any school that would teach using only the Bible - I thought I made that clear.

In addition, I doubt any accredited school would try to teach only using the Bible. If the school is not accredited it should not be considered a school for primary education.

 

It is good to hear that you dont support teaching using only the Bible. It is unfortunate that right wing ideologues in Texas from Gov. Perry on down to local school boards dont share that sentiment.

And despite your doubt, it is a common practice in TX public schools since the passage of the Texas "Bible bill" in 2007.

 

What do you imagine religious schools do?

Are you serious? I seem to recall coming across parables when I was about 8 and understanding right off that these were stories to get across a moral message.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM ---

/facepalm

Seriously.

 

Are you saying the Gov. of Texas wants schools to teach only using the Bible?

Like I wrote people who attend private religious school do just fine, some even become scientists. I am more worried about the kids who attend Chicago Public Schools - they rank as one of the worst school systems in the nation.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM ---

Care about the students they teach. Prepare them for higher education exceptionally well. Use a wholistic approach to helping children become functioning and responsible adults. etc.

Yes. Even something as simple as the lion laying down with the lamb - some take the literal meaning - some hear it said and think the person saying it, is being literal. Was the intent to be literal? I don't know, I personally view it in a symbolic manner.

No. But on the question of creation v. evolution, which I have given thought to - fist they do not have to be mutually exclusive - but second I find both require an equal amount of faith to be believed. I often ask those who only believe in evolution if they truly believe life on earth is an accident of nature? I also ask what natural purpose does self-awareness serve? Why did self-awareness evolve? I suppose it is all accidental. Believing in creationism does not mean for example that a farmer won't experiment with plants/domestic animal to improve either by using the "natural selection" precess.

 

Absolutely. that is why the governor and the legislature codified it into law in 2007:

§74.36. Requirements for Elective Courses on the Bible's Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament and Their Impact on the History and Literature of Western Civilization.​

(a) Pursuant to this rule, a school district may offer to students in Grade 9 or above:​

(1) an elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or​

(2) an elective course that combines the courses on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its impact and on the New Testament and its impact.​

(b) The purpose of a course under this section is to:​

(1) teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; and​

(2) familiarize students with, as applicable:​

(A) the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament;​

(B) the history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament;​

(C) the literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament; and​

(D) the influence of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament on law, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values, and culture.​

(c) A course offered under this section shall follow applicable law and all federal and state guidelines in maintaining religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of students in their school district. A course under this section shall not endorse, favor, or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward, any particular religion or nonreligious faith or religious perspective.​

The problem is that it is the local schools districts dominated by right wing evangelicals that are pushing the teaching beyond "religious neutrality" or "accommodating diverse religious views" to teaching in public schools that, according to the Bible, the Earth is only 6,000 years old or that racial diversity and racial inferiority among non-white humans today can be traced back to a curse placed on Noah's son.

And I fail to see how attempting to divert the issue to Chicago schools has anything to do with the concerns expressed by others here.

 

Fine, teach them in Church Bible Class (which is done) Teach them from the pulpit (which is done) Teach them at home (which is done) Why is additional Bible education needed in the public school system? What's the necessity of flooding the mainstream with the Bible? Could it be that it's viewed as another avenue ripe for converting the heathens?

No, there is a huge difference between the education of all religions and the education of one religion. There does not have to any preaching involved for promoting the one religion. The mere fact that one religion is taught exclusively is indication enough that it is regarded as either superior or at least more worthy. Why, from an educational standpoint, should one religion be more worthy of being included in a curriculum than another or others or all religions unless the intent is to promote it?

Who cares, unless you're a Christian? Why should the Jewish kid care what Jesus really meant in a parable? Or the Muslim kid? Or the atheist kid? Fine, teach it, clarify it, understand it. Just not in the public school system where there is a diversity of religion, unless it's in conjunction with other religions. Give equal time to dissecting and discussing the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita.

If you're saying that the public school system, by taking up the challenge of de-literalizing the Bible for Christian students is an endeavor worth the tax-payers money, I'd say you're a fool.

Anti-religious people don't care and if they do, they have plenty of outlets for finding the meaning of the parable.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM ---

/facepalm
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM ---

And financial support from taxpayers. Not only those within the state, who might agree with the religious doctrine, but federal tax payer dollars paid by those who believe in a separation of church and state.

It seems unconstitutional to allow such a thing, even if it's sneaking in the back door.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM ---

/double facepalm

 

​

​

I misunderstand you. On one hand I think I am reading that you believe they want to utilize the Bible as the only text book - on the other I am reading the requirements for an elective course. I have no objection with the people in Texas setting standards for elective courses.

It is my honest point of view. You are concerned about the children in Texas and their exposure to examples of extreme religious views held by a minority of Christians and I am concerned about the children in failing school systems like the one in Chicago. I put an emphasis on Chicago because I am familiar with it and it is the hometown of our President. I would think the President would want the school system in his hometown to be an example to the world of what can be accomplished utilizing the views held by him, the mayor, and his Sec. of Education.
--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 5:28 PM ---

First, to be clear I think religion is personal and religious education should take place outside of public school.
Second, I believe in age appropriate education. The theories of the universe, evolution and the origin of man should not come up until children have a strong understand of basic skills - most likely late middle school or high school.
Third, teaching should be objective. Facts are facts, theories are theories, opinions are opinions. These should not be conflated - if a teacher can not handle that, fire the teacher.
Fourth, I respect the intellectual curiosity of young people, if you present them with information they will work through it and come to their own conclusions if they are in a free and open environment.

I am not a fundamentalist Christian but I can tell you why I fear (not terrified or repulsed, because I am not) fundamentalist Muslims - first and foremost because their most vocal leaders say they want me dead, they say I am evil, they are intolerant of my freedom. If they did not say those things and if some did not act out on those things the fear would go away. It is not complicated.

 

Seriously? The Atlantic is expanding at a very measurable 2.5cm per year. This is measurable by GPS, by radio triangulation, and by the fact that we continually feed more trans-Atlantic cables because the original ones continually snapped due to pressure of expansion.

Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.[1]


Easy, does it contain "God"? Then it's a theological theory.

 

He probably won't believe it until Fisherman's Wharf is sitting in Tokyo Bay.

 

Are you arguing that the earth is creating mass?

In theory it is easy. In human history the separation between theology and scientific beliefs has often been foggy. In many cases it was the drive to understand theology that drove scientific pursuits. Also, in many cases theology hindered scientific pursuits. It is and has been very common for theology to be hidden in science. So, if you can untangle all that and clearly separate the two you are worthy of great praise.

 

No, the plates are still moving outward from their original positions and the Atlantic is growing in volume. We can talk about the melting of the polar ice cap but.......no.

Science is more effective in its own company, thank you. Keep the two separate. If in the future, they find some commonality, they can date now and then.

 

I can have fun with theories because I know a theory when I see one. From my point of view it seems you are taking some current theories as scientific fact - throughout history this has been common - and then new information proved many of those theories people believed as fact, wrong. You can mock people of biblical faith, but realize that some of the theories you take as fact require faith too. Either way, perhaps you can just get really really really angry and solve all the problems -


--- merged: Feb 1, 2013 at 7:26 PM ---

What? unless the earth is creating mass, what is expanding? If there is expansion there would have to be concentration. Or is the theory that the earth is like a balloon with an expanding gas core causing the expansion? What theory are we actually talking about?

It is the curiosity to understand life's meaning, purpose, that is the foundation of science. Science can not be separated from its foundation in theology.

P.s. Please clarify - is it your view that it is a fact or theory that the earths continents were at one time connected to form one big continent?

 

Really? Do I really have to get into plate tectonics? Every area where plates are being forced up and apart (Atlantic Ridge) they are being pushed towards each other and in (Marianas Trench). Honestly, boil some water and you'll magically see how convection works on the surface. Either you're a really really talented troll, or I'm flabbergasted we have a Bill O'Reilly situation where he claims science can't explain the tides.