jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (146 posts)

Teaching God in Schools.

  1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
    DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago

    This is probably going to be a very touchy subject, but I am curious to see the responses.

    There are many who want the creation story and God taught in school. I am curious, why does this need to be taught in academia? Are these topics not covered in Church or Sunday School anymore? Besides, who says that the God and Creation story being taught is in alignment with your personal beliefs. If these types of subjects are brought into the academia mainline of teachings, then what purpose is served by the many Youth Ministries, Sunday schools, and the church itself. Is the church becoming lazy in it's scope of teachings and wishing to pass the buck to another format? Or is it wanting more money for itself and the less programs being covered makes the net profits increase?

    There are schools (Private) that have a religious based program of study included. Since government is to be free of religion, why should we be fighting to get religion based programs of study included into public school systems? If religion based programs were to be included, it would have to include ALL religions...Would one really want their children to learn of a creation story that followed the Asatru line, or the Muslim line?

    But, by keeping the religion based teachings with the churches and out of schools, it allows children to be taught these thoughts as the parent wishes.

    The sciences in school teaches alternate theories on how the universe came about. And it is taught as theory only, with supported evidence. And is subject to change, based on new evidence as it is learned or acquired. It is not taught as "gospel truth".


    What are your thoughts on this matter?

    1. dredcuan profile image78
      dredcuanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Science and Religion were taught when in my private school before.  I must say that stories based from our Christian Living subject is far different from teachings in our Science subject.  Until now, it's very confusing to choose which story/fact tells the truth of our existence.  One side says that everything just happened because of God, while the other side explains all reasons about anything.  In the end, I think it's our own decision to choose which side we'll believe in.

    2. profile image0
      SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I would rather they not be taught in schools.  I know this will surprise many of you who post here.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
        DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, this doesn't not surprise me.

    3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is no place for any religion in public schools or in the government period. The only place religion should be taught in schools is in a specific comparative religion course. there can teach the Hindu creation story as far as I am concerned. Other wise religion should be a private thing . Want to go to church, that's your right. Other than that shut up. wink

  2. jimmythejock profile image82
    jimmythejockposted 6 years ago

    why not teach both and let kids decide for themselves simple.....jimmy

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What is the purpose of the Church then? They are being taught both. One in school and one at church.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image78
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This country is suppose to have a seperation of church and state. Creation myths and stories of plush gardens and a talking snake has no business being taught in our school system, period!

        1. TMMason profile image63
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well one could argue about that suppossed seperation of church and state myth.

        2. ComfortB profile image86
          ComfortBposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Where in the world does is say that the church must be separate from the state? We've taken a phrase from a private letter from one of the founding fathers to another individual and we've coined it to suit our need not to have God over our lives.
          America is quietly fading away because we have allowed the voices of the ungodly to prevail in this country that was founded on biblical principles.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Please read the First Amendment of the Constitution.

            If you want to establish a theocracy, please do it somewhere else.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Amen!  *coughs* err... I agree!

          2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 1st Amendment.

            Schools are established and governed by public finances (hence the government) allowing religion to be taught in schools would be tantamount to "establishing" a religion.  More arguably (but certainly valid) is that teaching one religion over another would prevent the exercise of the second religion.  In addition, having children educated on religion is seen by many states to violate parental rights.

            America may or may not be slipping away, that depends largely on personal views.  I seriously doubt that our children not being taught religion is school has much to do with it.  Now, allowing someone else to raise our children and then passing the buck when they don't grow up the way we want them to might.  Parental responsibility would go a long way in improving the situation.

          3. TahoeDoc profile image100
            TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Which god?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There is that too.

            2. Eaglekiwi profile image71
              Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Any God will do... at this stage! lol

              Or we could rely on 10 yr olds learning ALL their morals from great parenting and our upstanding leaders ..hmm

              1. Evolution Guy profile image60
                Evolution Guyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Thank goodness they don't learn them from you. wink

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
                  Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  ..Nor you! God help them wink

    2. shogan profile image87
      shoganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      jimmy, consider that reasoning applied to almost any idea, however bizarre.  It's not a practical solution.

    3. lone77star profile image89
      lone77starposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Both?" Very funny Jimmy. There are more than two sides to this "coin."

      As a Christian, I wouldn't want someone else's limited, shallow biblical interpretation being taught in public school. There are thousands of interpretations. Teach them all? That would be impractical.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But it is possible to touch on the mainstream churches and also some alternative religions.
        I know ,I was part of a system that did it .

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Did the system cover the Mormons?  Scientology?  Witnesses?  7th day Adventists?  Did it explain TV evangelicals? 

          More importantly, who did the choosing?  A small group of "good" Christians that only taught about "real" (none of the above sects need apply) Christianity while saying "There are other beliefs such as Paganism, witchcraft, Islam, and Buddhism.  Class dismissed"?

          Could other churches ask for and get their own belief system included? 

          The whole things is just rife with problems and should probably be avoided until the upper grades.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The group who were responsible for setting up the programme consisted of 4 parents ,4 teachers and 2 local clergy.

            From memory invites were sent to 9 various groups.
            Mormons ,7th Day Adventists, Brethren,Catholic,Chinese Traditional,Islam,Evangelical,Jewish ,Ringatu/Ratana (New Zealand Maori)

            Since the school term ran for 12 weeks ,the idea was to have one from each group speak to the kids ,present a story,question time etc.
            Inform and educate.

            Three separate Tuesdays the kids were taken to visit a mosque, a Bahai community for lunch (healthy eating lesson thrown in etc) and the last week was a festival of religions where they got to dress as their fav character.

            You call this the Elementary level ,so by the time the kids get to high school ,most have some idea of the religion and culture around them.

            It then becomes elective study and they choose (like everything else) specifically ...Fundamentalists ,Atheism, etc
            Some choose it because they are interested ,others for credits.

            Either way its education, least that's what we believe.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Now that sounds like a great idea, and one even I could go with.

              Unfortunately it is nothing like what is being promoted in the teaching of religion in American schools.  I wish it were.

      2. jimmythejock profile image82
        jimmythejockposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        you only read my first comment try my second and now my third lol, it happens in uk schools.
        jimmythejock wrote:

        In the UK religion is taught in all schools, but not just Christianity, in the R.E (Religious Education) classes children learn about different beliefs and different cultures, which teaches them to be respectful of other people of any race and any religion.
        In the science classes, evolution is taught and as I said earlier the children can make up their own minds what they choose to believe.

        1. lone77star profile image89
          lone77starposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Awesome, Jimmy. That rocks!

      3. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes it would be impractical.
        You could wind up having your children listening to someone who found information from Scientology informative for example.

        1. shogan profile image87
          shoganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.  That would only be fair, right, Earnest?  wink

    4. Shadesbreath profile image86
      Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, not both.

      School is for teaching reading, writing, science and arithmetic.

      Churches, mosques, synagogues, compounds, longhouses, pentagrams, bonfires, enclaves, kivas, retreats, temples, altars, holy sites, hallowed grounds, ritual dens, caves, hollows, meadows, and whatever else I missed are for teaching religious stuff like the creation story found in the Bible.

      It's bad enough we're jamming pop-psychology and every political and social agenda so engendered into school that kids can't read or cipher as it is. Do we really have to waste space with religion too?

    5. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
      Slarty O'Brianposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Lets teach the Hindu creation story too and the Chinese creation story and every native creation story in the world. Give me a break. Science in science class religion in private schools or in religion class. No religion in science class or in public schools.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    The demands are made for teaching in school because it is far easier to indoctrinate children than adults.  If you don't get before they are able to reason logically you are unlikely to get many converts.  Some of course, but not nearly so many as is possible when you get them young.

    Without proper indoctrination in the younger, formative, years children may well grow up understanding that while others believe it is not necessary to do so.  In which case the churches will not-so-gradually lose power over the people.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with indoctrination...But most if not all parent take their children to church...Why the need to include these teaching into school as well?

      To me, the argument is side by side teaching...But I wonder if it isn't an attempt to replace...

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Of course it's an attempt to replace...truth with mythology.

        Yes, parents can take their kids to Sunday School to learn such things.  But they can't take your kids there - they have to be caught and forcefed somewhere else and the most obvious is the public school system.

        1. lone77star profile image89
          lone77starposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, I agree with the thrust of your argument, but don't get rowdy.

          "Truth" and "mythology?" That's not an accurate statement. Science never pretends to be "truth." I would perhaps call it a "relative truth." Biblical interpretation can be "mythology," but not necessarily. Just because you weren't there with video camera to witness Peter walking on water to meet his master, doesn't mean it's myth.

          But even someone's biblical interpretation is a "relative truth." It may be "true" for them and work in their lives.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're right - I shouldn't get rowdy and I apologize.  In my defense I can only say that teaching small children that the myths believed in by the religious community raises my ire.  And yes, I said "myth":

            myth
               [mith] Show IPA
            noun
            1.
            a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
            2.
            stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
            3.
            any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
            4.
            an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
            5.
            an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

            The story of Peter fits 1,2 and 3.  What else would you call it without saying the same thing in different words?

            Religion in general fits all 5 definitions, particularly #5.  Again, what else would you call it?  It certainly isn't fact and to call it a belief is just #5 while conveniently forgetting the enormous institution of organized religion.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting conspiracy theory. But, I would think that due to the high rate of Christian "home schooling" practices, they would much rather avoid the public school system and it's overall influences than attempt to infiltrate from within.

          I like the theory, though, hadn't actually thought of that one. smile

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And which "home schooling" practices would that be?

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
              DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think he is referring to 'certain religious type cults" that almost exclusively home school their children to control what is being taught to them. ( I could be wrong in that assumption though)

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                To one degree or another, all parents attempt to control what is taught to their children, but I get the point.

                Many Christians, (myself included) view the raising of children to be the responsibility of the parent.  There are some verses that back that conclusion up to me and a lot of homeschooling parents I know see the same meaning.

                Personally, I would make the choice even if it wasn't for my faith so I realize that using the bible to back me up is sort of copping out. 

                Do I do it to control what my child is taught... absolutely.  I'm not sure where the problem with that lies.  It's the responsibility of the parent to teach the skills needed for life at an appropriate time and at a level that is best for a child's level of understanding. It is unrealistic to expect anyone else to care enough about my children (and 20 others) to cater teaching to each individuals level of understanding/maturity.  In addition, I do feel I am responsible for teaching morals to my kids.  That's what parents do.  Yes they are going to be my morals... and I'm still not sure what is wrong with that.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                  DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I was refering more of the actual "cults". Where the majority of the teaching comes from the "Religious" Leader's point of view.

                  Parents should teach their children what they feel is right...

                  I myself, do not teach my children anything about belief systems in religions. When they ask questions, I answer them. But when it comes to religions, I stick to more of historical or textual facts and leave the beliefs out of the conversations. When they are old enough to understand the belief portions themselves, I give them the place to find the information they seek and let them come up with their own interpretations. My 18 year old leans towards the christian side of beliefs (friends from school). My younger two (6 and 2), aren't old enough to ask questions yet.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's sort of where I stand DoubleScorpion.  I believe that my children should have their own choice in matters of faith when they are ready to explore such things.  I've always answered questions about religious matters the best that I could in the most objective way possible.  If a child, at five, would ask me if there was a God I would say: Some people think there is and some people don't.  At 12 my answer would be: "People believe in a whole lot of different Gods called by a whole lot of different names and some don't believe in any Gods or religion at all."  At 17 I would say "There is your laptop-go Google it. There are different churches in the phone book and the library is down the street."

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Your morals or the morals from verses in the Bible?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Frequently they are the same, but it doesn't matter why I have my morals, I would like them passed to my child... because that's kinda my job.

                    My view on the hypocritical thing was amply explained.  If you don't think you are being hypocritical, then so be it.  I think you are.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The practices that keep children free from the influences a secular society provides and the practices of religious re-affirmation in place of learning.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                But you want to keep your children free from religious influence and would be very irate if those views were overruled or criticized.  I think that may be a tad hypocritical of you.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL! If I wanted religious influence for my children, I would take them to a place of worship, like a church, synagogue or temple.

                  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't those places typical of where one gets religious influence?

                  How is that hypocritical?

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
                    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thats a nice choice for YOU
                    But kids cant make the choice ,if there's none to make.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I suppose you could call it a conspiracy, but it is really just another form of evangelism.  One aimed at children while they are still impressionable and easy to hook.

            I can even understand the concept.  If I see a child about to run in front of a car I won't hesitate to pull them back; Christians see a child destined for Hell and wish to help.  At least individuals do; I wouldn't put that pure a motive onto organized religion and churches.

            Of course, it also makes it easier to educate their own children; everyone else in the country will help pay for the religious education they want if it can be forced in that direction.  Unfortunately, the same people crying for prayer in school, teaching of creationism, etc. forget that it won't be their own version being taught.

  4. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    The creation story is religious. It needs to be kept out of the schools. And, like you said. In fairness every religion would expect their accounts to be taught also. The amount of time involved in appeasing every religion could be better spent teaching more important topics.

    If the religious don't have the time, or inclination, to share their own beliefs with their kids; we as taxpayers shouldn't be expected to foot the bill for the school system to take up their slack.

  5. jimmythejock profile image82
    jimmythejockposted 6 years ago

    In the UK religion is taught in all schools, but not just Christianity, in the R.E (Religious Education) classes children learn about different beliefs and different cultures, which teaches them to be respectful of other people of any race and any religion.
    In the science classes, evolution is taught and as I said earlier the children can make up their own minds what they choose to believe.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree and have always taken the stance that education or the syllabus ought to be objective in its delivery.

      When my kids were younger,the subject of Bible in Schools was taught by surrounding church members 30 mins every Tues.
      Students had the option off being in class or in the library reading.

      Usually one or two per class excused themselves.

      Worked fine for years.

      Education is a large umbrella,and I abhor adults who think they should decide what kids get taught! or call certain topics indoctrination and others educational ,give me a break lol

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
        DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        In my opinion only, all education is a form of indoctrination. What is acceptable and what is not...well I can only decide that for myself and my children only.

        If I had a complete moral objection to what is taught in schools, I do have the option of homeschooling my children to what I would feel to be morally correct for them.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Home-schooling is a great option,although not always the best thing for some kids.
          (We lived in the country and it was a very small country school,and to take my kids out would have meant even more isolation for them)

          However given a different environment ,I would have jumped at the chance.

          Another thing too is I worked, and I relied on my taxes to pay those schools to administer a broad range of topics to the best of their ability.

          Why not teach evolution alongside creation for example?
          Jesus and Mohammad etc

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
            DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The only issue with teaching evolution and creation side by side, is one is scientific theory, the other is religious thought. They are not in the same category. They would have to be taught in two seperate classes.

            And of course to teach religious thought, one would have to include all religious thoughts, not just one or two of the mainstream versions.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
              Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh come on DS they teach whatever they want amd quite happily will slide the topic under anything they can...

              Considering thousands of people throughout the world follow that 'thought' why not enlighten the kids...

              I spent a good part of my education learning far more useless topics ,that I have never used and I would bet money that kids are still being offered equally prosaic topics.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Therein lies the problem, Eaglekiwi - to teach creationism as a science side by side with scientific theories promotes it (at least in the mind of a child) to equal weight, which it is not.

                I completely understand the desire to teach the two (creationism and evolution) together in a science class, it is rather inappropriate.  Firstly, evolution does not address the matter of creation of life, and does not address creation of the universe.  They are apples and oranges.

                Secondly, creationism violates far too many of the natural laws we have observed and noted to include it in any science class.  It would be like teaching our kids that mankind will never fly with the class being conducted in an airborne 747.

              2. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, A scenario for you. A religious group wins a court case and is allowed to teach its creation story as an alternate to the evolution theory. So the schools change their science courses to include this religious groups creation theory. All schools are required to teach this new curriculum and all children between the ages of 5 and 18 are required to attend school and learn this new theory as part of their sciences...

                This religious group...Asatru (Odinist/Heathenism) or maybe the Muslim faiths...

                Do you agree that this is something that should be taught as part of the sciences as fact or evidence supported theory?

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, they ARE being objective by making sure religions are not taught in school, that is one of the very fundamental principles of a secular society. It makes sure YOUR children are safe from persecution from other religions.



        That doesn't work fine at all.

        Is there any other subject taught in schools in which the students must choose between being off class in library reading for similar reasons as Bible studies?

        Why should my child have to go to library reading just because your child is being taught by teachers?

        What gives you the right to force my child to sit in a library in a public school? On the same token, what gives you the right to force my child to learn your holy book?

        If Bible studies were part of the curriculum, what exactly will you agree with being taught considering you can't even agree with other Christians here on the various interpretations of the Bible?

        That's why I like the conspiracy theory from wilderness as he sums it up nicely as another selfish attempt of Christians evangelizing Christianity.

        That doesn't work fine at all.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And that is just the way it should be taught.  Unfortunately, the creation myth is the US is being pushed to be taught in the science classes instead of comparative religion, and if possible to replace evolution.

      And, of course, no creation myth but the Christian one is to be allowed.

      1. lone77star profile image89
        lone77starposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bravo, Wilderness!

        "Yes" to comparative religion. "No" to creationism to the exclusion of evolution.

        And you're wrong to characterize it as "the" Christian one. There are hundreds of "official" Christian ones, and thousands, if not millions, of actual Christian interpretations.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You are right in that there are hundreds or thousands of interpretations. 

          Not only should creationism not supplant evolution it should be taught ONLY in the comparative religion course.  It is not science, to be taught with science classes, and all the squalling and insisting about the "science" of creationism will not make it so.

    3. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      If all religions are taught in a class seperate from the sciences, that would be ok. Teaching children to be respectful and non-bias to all walks of life is an acceptable thought.

      Teaching children to be bias, however would not be beneficial to anyone.

  6. TMMason profile image63
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Do you really think teaching God and morallity would fit in with all the immorallity they fill the lil kids' heads full of.

    Talk about confused children... morals... no morals... morals... no morals... etc...

    1. Evolution Guy profile image60
      Evolution Guyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      LO)L Kill the witches innit

  7. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    Religion in the schools - they could teach all the kiddies how to hate half the world.

  8. lone77star profile image89
    lone77starposted 6 years ago

    Biblical literalists have it all wrong. They have their shallow interpretation and they've stopped looking. But idle hands want to shove their ideas into public schools. Not good, except for the biblical literalists.

    Comparative religion would be excellent. I have learned so much from Buddhism, Taoism, Scientology, Judaism, Kabbalah and Christianity. Even science, logic and math have helped my understanding of religion. Helping kids think outside the box by making analogistic connections would be awesome.

    As a Christian, I wouldn't want someone else's perverted interpretation of Christianity dominate my children's education. The founder of Christianity taught humility. Too bad so many Christians forgot that lesson.

  9. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    My grandkids are all in good multi cultural schools without any religious classes, and are learning useful things every single day as far as I can see. They love school, and are happy well adjusted kids. If you teach religion, you teach the bible or quoran.

    I don't want my little ones being fed this sort of garbage. 

    "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

  10. AEvans profile image65
    AEvansposted 6 years ago

    Children should be taught both creation and theory. God should not be removed schools nor should the theory but everyone should learn both sides and not just one. smile

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Which creation concept should be taught?  Native American Indian?  Pagan?  The Norse concepts?

      Same question for God - which one?  Who will choose? 

      Is it just the local majority?  Which locality around the world would then be right and thus have superior schools that teach truth while the rest teach lies?

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But ALL schools dont teach ALL the same topics as it is..
        In fact many Eastern schools prefer to keep anything Western far fro their syllabus wink

        And until the 1980's most text books were ALL written by white people.
        While many were/are respected quite a few were not relevant to other races.

        How objective is that?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry, I'm not following.  Eastern schools = New York or is it China?  Wester schools = Oregon or the US?

          How were the texts not relevant?  Did they provide false information?  Or were they irrelevant because they were written by people with less melanin in their skin that some students?

          "How objective is that?"  I assume the question is rhetorical and you agree that teaching throughout our country should be objective and factual.  How then do you require a thorough grounding in the myths of Christianity but not other religions; religions that are just as likely to be Right as Christianity is?

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It is easy to present who believes what and why. It is only complicated in these forums.

            Goodness me ,if a class of 5yr olds can learn about other cultures from all over the world..( of course Im assuming that they already do) then a skip across to religions is not that big a jump.

            I had no problem with my kids being exposed to other religions ,in fact it seemed relevant since they were bringing them home for sleepovers occassionally.

            I think it was you wilderness who mentioned the fact that it might be impossible to adequately educate certain truths ,since others could be teaching other 'truths'
            I assumed by that you meant globally.
            I oplogise if that was not your intention.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              To teach young children about other cultures is most likely a very good thing.  They can see it (on TV if nothing else) and it begins to set the stage for tolerance later in life.

              I would question, however, that a young child (elementary school) can really differentiate and understand beliefs being different.  Most are taught at home that a belief system is factual, yet they would be taught that another, contradictory, system is also factual.  Confusion would be inevitable until the child was old enough to truly understand and accept the concept behind belief.

              For instance, a second grader goes to science and learns that everything started with the big bang because we see this and that happening.  He then goes to religion class and learns that the Indians thought this, the Christians think that, the Pagans tell us a third story, buddhist teach a fourth and the ancient Aztecs reported it happened a fifth way.  There is no way an 8 year child is going to decipher all this and make an informed decision.

              No, I referred only to the myriad of different beliefs in the USA only.  Christians tend to forget or ignore the fact, but they profess only a few dozen of the hundreds or thousands of belief systems in this country.

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image71
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The OP didnt just say the USA-
            I was commenting with an International flavour wink

    2. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Should it be taught as science or as theology based classes?

  11. Lisa HW profile image81
    Lisa HWposted 6 years ago

    Unless it's a religious school (as with Catholic schools), teaching religion should absolutely be left out.  Teaching science is what schools do and should do.  When I was a kid the Catholic grade schools didn't teach much, if any, science (at least where I lived).  It was a big problem for kids who got to high-school with little or no background in science.

    Kids can learn about their family's beliefs/cultures from their family, or in schools designed for that kind of stuff.  People who don't like that the public schools won't teach their beliefs ought to send their kids to a school where their beliefs are taught.

    "Separation of church and state" isn't about "separation of church and state until someone thinks his own religion and/or anyone else's ought to be mixed in with 'state' " (public schools).  It's bad enough that a lot of people would choose to deny the facts science has proven.  Throwing in the disregard for the concept of separation of church and state isn't something we ought to have to be dealing with too.

  12. rebekahELLE profile image87
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    And should be taught at home by parents and family.
    Religion does not belong in the classroom unless it is a religious school.

    Creation cannot be taught as a science.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess America would have to drop the pledge as it stands then ,and go back to the original

      1. rebekahELLE profile image87
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think the points being made in this thread are that religious beliefs should be left to the family and church. Everyone has their own beliefs, even children. There are so many different kinds of religious beliefs, how is this the school's responsibility?  If you teach creationism, then you would have to teach other cultures beliefs also, which is fine if it's in a comparative religion class, as taught at the college level.
        If we're talking about indoctrination, I think religion has done its job well.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Elective options would be fair and do work.

          Yes ,sorry I was talking from a general perspective and not just an American one wink

      2. DoubleScorpion profile image81
        DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You might be on to something here Kiwi. smile

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Of course creation can be taught as a science.  Just lie to the kids and tell them it is.  They are in school and know they are expected to learn what they're told.  The teacher is the authority figure and knows everything.  They will believe very nearly anything that they are told and a lie about something they know nothing about will become truth to them very quickly and easily.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution is still a theory and being taught as fact.

        I object to my children being indoctrinated and lied to about Christianity!

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry, but evolution is a proven fact and we see it all around us nearly every day.  Were you to study and understand the concepts of evolution you would know this.

          Creation, on the other hand, has zero evidence for it outside of the belief system of its adherents.  I'm sure you have studied and understand the concepts of creationism and you know the lack of evidence as well as I.

          To prevent anyone (teachers, educators, etc.) from lying to your children about Christianity, would it not be best to keep religion out of schools; let parents and priests teach the belief system you want them to?

    3. Eaglekiwi profile image71
      Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Without creation ,you have no Science.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image86
        Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How is it so unfathomably hard to recognize that not everyone believes in your religion?

        We ALL pay taxes for school, but we don't ALL want to waste our kids' valuable educational time on religious mythology. I'm not even saying your religion's version isn't true. But since it can't be proven to be true in anything approaching a universally recognized way, and since if we teach your version, we have to teach the version of every other religion as well to be "fair," why not just SKIP all the religions and stick to teaching what we DO know to be true, which is how the alphabet works, what happens when you have a variable in a mathematical equation, and how electrons flow or frog anatomies function?

        That way, everyone's kid gets useful information they can ACTUALLY use to pursue happiness, and nobody's tax money gets wasted.

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But.... that would involve being logical wouldn't it? smile

        2. Eaglekiwi profile image71
          Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          America kicked God out of the schools,so I do think its quite evident that at least some dont agree with me lol lol

          Of course everyone doesnt agree with me shades, take a deep breathe and stay calm.

          I just think its a shame that many kids will miss out or remain ignorant of a vital part of education.

          I certainly do not think bible study should replace the good ole top 3

          Reading ,Writing and Math wink

          Hmm which is failing as well but I guess thats another topic!

  13. Eaglekiwi profile image71
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    Websters dictionary from www.webster.com
    Religion
    re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
    n.
    1
    a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
    :flowers: A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
    2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
    3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

    so Atheism does qualify as a religion and that religion is being forced on millions of students across America.
    so much for separation of church and state  hmm

    1. shogan profile image87
      shoganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Eaglekiwi, would you advocate for the teaching of evolution in Sunday School, just to keep things balanced?

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
        Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sure it already is as a comparison wink
        least it was at the Church I attended.

        1. shogan profile image87
          shoganposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps New Zealand is far different than here (I've always wanted to visit there, by the way).  I can't imagine an American Sunday School teaching evolution, but then again, it's a surprising world.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image71
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Some things are different,others just the same.
            Wait til I make it back and I will be your personal tour guide wink

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ??? Which of the 4 definitions would you apply to a lack of belief in God (atheism)?  None look applicable to me.

      1. TMMason profile image63
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        #4 fits the bill nicely, Wild.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A lack of belief in God (lack of belief) is not a cause.  It is not a principle, and it is not an activity.  It is, pure and simple, an absence of belief. 

          Although a very few atheists will use it as a cause to get something, or as a misguided principle to convince someone how to live or even (really stretching it) an activity it is none of these.

          There is far too little cohesion between atheists to every coalesce into anything like an organization that could promote any of these things.

  14. LegendaryN8 profile image60
    LegendaryN8posted 6 years ago

    I wonder why Buddhism isn't taught in schools.

    There's actually multiple versions of what would be considered a "creation" theory...

  15. TahoeDoc profile image100
    TahoeDocposted 6 years ago

    Well, since the US is so far advanced in its teaching of actual science, I guess it wouldn't hurt to throw in a few hundred other ideas. Don't forget the Flying Spaghetti Monster- just ask Kansas whether that is relevant or not.

    In the words of the prophet from his letter to the Kansas Board of Education...
    "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
    —Bobby Henderson


    When I sent my children to preschools that were run by churches, I fully expected them to hear bible stories and prayers of a Christian nature- no arguments and no complaints. In public school, I will fight tooth and nail to keep it out. Putting it there is another ploy to push an agenda and intimidate children that don't belong to the majority. It doesn't belong there, they don't have time for it and there are other avenues where parents can select their particular brand of religion for their children.

    Just my opinion of course, but this is one thing I will continue to go after.

  16. leahlefler profile image98
    leahleflerposted 6 years ago

    Hey, I want my religion included in the educational system, if we're going to take up more of the academic day with this sort of thing! http://www.venganza.org/

    1. TahoeDoc profile image100
      TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you... I forgot to post the link in my post. Carbo diem and ramen to you.

      1. leahlefler profile image98
        leahleflerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is such a delicious, delicious religion. Carbo Diem!

        All kidding aside, I find it interesting that in New York State, the Universal Pre-K System can be run by any non-profit organization. In our specific district, this often means that "overflow" UPK sites are run in churches - the churches get funding from the state to help fund their preschool program, in exchange for not teaching any religion in the preschool class. My son was placed into the overflow class at a local religious preschool, because he didn't make the lottery for the school district site. While religion was not specifically taught in the classroom, sermons were delivered prior to each school assembly, prayers said during school events (the summer picnic), etc. I found it dishonest for the church to take money from the state, then violate the rules allowing them to take the grant money.

        1. TahoeDoc profile image100
          TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I would find that dishonest and unethical as well. When I paid my (after-tax) tuition to the religious preschools (one Catholic, one Lutheran), I made a choice to allow my children to be exposed to Christianity. My spending money, my choice.

          My tax dollars should NOT be used to support such efforts in public school. I have friends who are atheist, agnostic and of other faiths. There is no place for a Christian doctrine in public school. NONE. And I don't understand why Christians would push so hard for it when they can take their own children to the church that most aligns with their beliefs (which is theoretically free) as much as they want and teach whatever they want at home, unless they are trying to force MY child to share their belief or intimidate them for the lack thereof. That's unacceptable.

          I have little free time and have learned to pick my battles. This is and always will be one of them.

          1. leahlefler profile image98
            leahleflerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It has always bothered me - the underlying attitude was one of being able to "help" children who weren't taken to church by their parents. The audacity of that thought process still shocks me - the parents get to choose which religion (or lack of religion) their children are exposed to. Not the church, using public funds for their program.

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image71
            Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I pick my battles too,and I luckily for me its not this one.

            I have to say though ,I am so glad my children were never educated in the USA.
            If its not political ,church versus state,its peer pressure.
            Just crazy.

            1. TahoeDoc profile image100
              TahoeDocposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Teaching the doctrine of a particular religion IS a type of peer pressure. Those who adhere to that doctrine deny this, but it is. I felt it as a child growing up in a small town where almost everyone was Christian, but I was not.

              Why didn't anyone see me at Bible school? What was 'wrong' with my family that we didn't go to church? Why didn't I pray with the teacher  (who was doing this illegally but I didn't know any better at the time)? or know the words to the Lord's prayer when pretty much everyone else did? How could I be friends with the Jehovah's Witness girl 'cause they were weird?

              A school approved validation that Christianity was the 'right' religion would have made this a hundred times worse. After all, if the school and the teachers thought it was the right thing to teach, then the lack of belief must be MY problem, MY wrong...

              I would support a comparative religion class/elective though.

  17. Eaglekiwi profile image71
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    I would question, however, that a young child (elementary school) can really differentiate and understand beliefs being different.  Most are taught at home that a belief system is factual, yet they would be taught that another, contradictory, system is also factual.  Confusion would be inevitable until the child was old enough to truly understand and accept the concept behind belief.

    My point is they should be exposed to differences in a safe and responsible way ,so they DONT grow up relying on TV as an often 2nd hand educator,and become part of an ever growing insular society.

    I think you have underestimated the ability of a young mind to learn even simple facts.

    Learning should be fun though ,and if you think for a moment that the big bang theory is easy to understand-think again wink

    Where by the way is everyday evidence?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I could be wrong about the ability of a young child to understand that beliefs presented as facts are not facts but only beliefs.  I doubt it though, considering that I have never seen a parent indoctrinate their own child with anything but Truth in the form of beliefs.

      Nor would I have any objection to a comparative religion course in high school.  By that time children DO understand the difference between fiction, belief and fact (all three really are different!).

      1.  Bacteria mutate to become drug resistant.

      2.  Humans continue to evolve; we are losing our wisdom teeth for instance and our jaw is getting smaller.

      3.  We can "force evolve" animals; it's called breeding but it's nothing nature can't or doesn't do all by itself.

      If you truly don't already know these and understand they are the works of evolution, that they are what evolution is all about, you really do need to do some study of the subject.  Old as it is, and out of date, "The Origin of Species" is worth reading.

    2. Lisa HW profile image81
      Lisa HWposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Child (person)-development-wise, it's generally more in the mid (but more often, late teens/early twenties) when people start trying to figure out their place in the universe, the meaning of life, their own spirituality (or lack of it), etc.   It's almost as if people have gotten through all the stages of learning about the world, and themselves; and then move on to the finishing touches of development/maturity.

      I don't necessarily think it's even necessary to talk to younger kids about the Big Bang Theory (at least not in school and within the context of the school curricula).  As with so many other subjects, the youngest kids should be presented with the age-appropriate/developmentally appropriate information which is usually then used as a foundation for more advanced taking on of the subject. 

      I taught my own kids the nutshell basics of what some religions believe by telling them, "Some people believe.....".   That was it.  They got the rough idea about the differences between some religions and some people who don't belong to one religion or another.    I told them what I believed, and what my reasoning for believing it was.  I told them the truth as I knew it, which was that no human being can say for sure whether there is or isn't a God.  That left room for them to believe in God or not without conflicting with anything I told them about what I or don't believe.  They actually make fairly frequent references to God, so I can only assume that, at least at the time, they did believe in God.  My thing was that I didn't want to eradicate that "option" in them, but I didn't want to lie and tell them that I was certain about something that cannot, in fact, be proven one way or another.

      I've got plenty of axes to grind with the American public schools system, but I'm glad my own three kids were educated where their heads weren't filled with someone else's ideas about God and religion.  Children often admire, trust, and look up to their teachers.  They do pay attention to what their teachers tell them.  That's not a role that should be taken lightly, especially when it comes to something like religion.

  18. rebekahELLE profile image87
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    I don't understand why some have difficulty accepting that religion should not be taught in public schools. That is what places of worship are for. There are religious schools or homeschooling if you want religion in schools.

    Comparative religion classes are college level; if in high school, it's still religious content.

  19. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago

    God does not need to be taught anything by mere mortals.  To suggest so is blasphemy. mad

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know Ron...There seems to be an awful lot of humans speaking for him...If he needs humans to speak for him ( and they all have different versions of what he wants), maybe he isn't as all knowing as we claim he is.

  20. Jonathan Janco profile image73
    Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years ago

    I went to a Jesuit high school. So, of course religious subjects were taught. However, the basics of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, et al were also taught. I have no preoblem with schools teaching the basics of all different beliefs of creation, as long as it is approached as objectively as the the other subjects.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Should it be taught as part of a Science course? That is what is being attempted by certain groups.

      1. Jonathan Janco profile image73
        Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Science of Religion? Sounds like an oxymoron. But then again they do teach Business Ethics also, so . . .

        In literature class I can see it, but not science. Science is a method of calcuable proof weighed against a margin of error. In religion, there is no proof of any sort and no margin of error. No, the way I described my own experience in high school is about the only way I would find religious studies in school to be acceptable. If many different beliefs were taught objectively. Of course, the Jesuits are very good at that as they have a reputation for being good educators, so they know that their students are not all Christian, let alone Catholic.

        1. LegendaryN8 profile image60
          LegendaryN8posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Since religion can not be subjected to the scientific method, it can not be approached as a science.  I believe this is what differentiated science from philosophy, of which religion would be part.

  21. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago

    What I said:

    But you want to keep your children free from religious influence and would be very irate if those views were overruled or criticized

    In other words- You cannot expect to be free to teach your children your beliefs but criticize others when they do the same.  That would be hypocritical.

    In response to:  "In other words, your morals are the same as the morals from the Bible because that's exactly where your morals were derived. They aren't your morals, then. They are morals of people who lived thousands of years ago"

    I'll go ahead and add ignorantly presumptive to hypocritical.  As you have absolutely no clue where my morals have derived from or what they are.  You are simply drawing conclusions from my stated faith based on your own incorrect stereotypes .  Good Job!

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm very sorry, Melissa, but I am at a complete loss as to how those two are related.

      I am free to teach my children just as you are free to teach your children. What does any of that have to do with not having religion taught in public schools?



      If you are using for an argument that your morals are not derived from the Bible, then you either cherry pick the Bible or you don't follow it at all. Which one is it?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, I was commenting on your home school comment.  Please try to keep up smile

        Secondly, I have lived a pretty eventful life, my morals and sense of right and wrong come from that life.  The same that I imagine yours do. In most cases, they line up with the Bible because the biggies are pretty universal.  I would have a long conversation about how many of YOUR morals most likely line up with the bible as well if you were open-minded enough to have it.  And how those morals also line up with science...

        And yes, I do choose relevant verses of the bible for guidance when I need it (along with any other sources I might find relevant)  I'm sure you will explain exactly what the problem with that is too.  Something about me wanting to kill infidels or somesuch.

        Now, please continue to find completely inaccurate ways to support your biased views that I behave in a way that I don't really. I understand really, if you accept that your stereotypes don't apply to everyone universally, you might accidentally have to admit you might be wrong in other cases.  Then what would you base your world view on?  Actually understanding an individual on a case by case basis takes so much work you know.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's not a matter of keeping up. You're argument simply makes no sense.

          You wish to home school your kids because you don't want them learning anything about the world around them and would rather keep them secured in cherry picking the Bible.

          You seem to think it is hypocritical that I don't want to do the same thing.



          LOL! Good one! My morals lining up with the Bible and the Bible's morals lining up with science. lol



          Yes, it's called cherry picking. You will use some verses but not others despite the commands of the Bible and God.



          You mean like calling yourself a Christian but not behaving like one? How is that inaccurate?



          On the contrary, I do understand Christians behave in so many different ways and are not stereotypical of each other. That's the problem, don't you see? smile

      2. LegendaryN8 profile image60
        LegendaryN8posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know how anybody could really interpret the Bible in accuracy.  It has been altered by regents of State for hundreds of years to suit the sociopolitical views of the era to which it governed.  It merely provided a vector for the papal state to control western society views.

  22. profile image0
    thetaxgirlposted 6 years ago

    The constitution originally said that the government could not establish a religion. It never said separation of church and state. In the original days children were taught from the bible in school. It was intended for us to be a christian nation. That does not mean it is now though.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The writers (of the constitution) guaranteed that government cannot establish a religion and intended for us to be a Christian nation.

      Just how does that work?

    2. DoubleScorpion profile image81
      DoubleScorpionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The First Amendment (As of Dec 15,1791),states:
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition Government for a redress of grievances.

      I would take this to mean, that congress is not allowed to create a law that allows for any set religion to be a part of the government. And it is not alloweed to prevent anyone from exercising their own religious practices.

      Yeah, I am a nerd and I have a copy of the Constitution.

  23. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago

    "It's not a matter of keeping up. You're argument simply makes no sense"

    If that's what you think.

    "You wish to home school your kids because you don't want them learning anything about the world around them and would rather keep them secured in cherry picking the Bible."

    LMAO, yep.  Don't let the fact that I don't use the Bible or any religious materials in my curriculum deter you. Or the fact that my children all follow different faiths (I count the 2 year old as agnostic).  Or even the fact that when two of my children wanted to enter public school, they got no argument from me.  (And tested in at 2-4 grades above age level)  Please, keep showing YOUR ignorance of MY life.

    "You seem to think it is hypocritical that I don't want to do the same thing."

    Nope, I think your opinions are hypocritical.  I think your ideas of what I am doing are simply incorrect.

    "LOL! Good one! My morals lining up with the Bible and the Bible's morals lining up with science."

    So you are a cheating, lying, murdering, idol worshiping, coveting person who hates his parents?  Good to know.  You do realize that 80 percent (that would be "most") of the bible's content is repeated in all religions and most countries laws?  Have Earnest explain why to you.  I may not agree with him a lot of the times, but he is dead on his assessment of Biblical contents.  The law of the bible is basically the law of man, placed onto paper for many reasons but the most pragmatic reason is that these "laws" help keep order.  By installing them into our morals, the policing population doesn't have to enforce by force.

    That being said, there are certain reasons that those "morals" or "laws" or whatever you want to call them are beneficial to the survival of the human race.  Let's take adultery... SCIENCE shows that there are two main ways to ensure the survival of a species.  The first is to have lots and lots of offspring, walk away and hope they survive.  The second is to have few offspring and nurture them for an extended period of time.  As humans are incapable of the first, our survival relies on the second.  In those species where the mating pair remains together, the children fair better.  They as a species are more successful.  If a male (or a female) has additional offspring with another mate during the time the first offspring are still being reared, the at best the care is split and both sets of offspring suffer. IMHO, that is why jealousy is such a powerful emotion in humans.

    "Yes, it's called cherry picking. You will use some verses but not others despite the commands of the Bible and God."

    No, its called seeking guidance and making decisions based on different sources.  It's what most people do.  Where is the ONE source you use to make all your decisions?  I know very few people that follow all of the tenants of their belief system all of the time. (actually  I know none)  I assume that you claim to be rational.  Are YOU rational 100 percent of the time?  Are one hundred percent of your beliefs/actions based on empirical evidence or does something else less rational occasionally guide you?  If so, exactly what evidence did you have for assuming that my curriculum was biblically based?  Especially since I specifically stated in another post that I left the decisions on faith to my children.

    "You mean like calling yourself a Christian but not behaving like one? How is that inaccurate?"

    I am a Christian, therefore all behaviors I have are "behaving like a Christian".  If others behave differently and are Christian then they are also behaving like Christians. Judging other's by the behavior of a portion of their population is stereotypical and dangerous.  Telling me that I am not a Christian because I am not acting like your view of a christian is just as ignorant as telling someone that they are not a woman/black/gay/asian etc because they don't act like you think they should.

    "On the contrary, I do understand Christians behave in so many different ways and are not stereotypical of each other. That's the problem, don't you see?"

    I'm sorry, that must be very confusing to you.  Maybe if you stopped seeing the group and started seeing the individuals then it would be less of a strain.  That way you only have to pass erroneous judgement on the people you come in contact with, instead of the whole world.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but you can make up anything you want about your life on an internet forum. Why should I believe you?



      You haven't shown any hypocrisy on my part other than attempting to connect one unrelated concept to another.



      Is that a fact? Wow! I suppose it didn't occur to you then that the origins of that "content" you refer had nothing to do with gods or religions?

      Of course, we find that the vast majority, perhaps more than 80% of cheaters, liars, murderers, idol worshipers, covetors and those who hate their parents are religious. Where did they get their morals?



      I'm sure there are many theories surrounding the origins of the bible, going back through many other religions before it, one supplanting the other, carrying forward with it the myths, adding new twists along the way.



      That's what SCIENCE shows? LMAO!

      If a male has five children with one female, there are two adults looking after five children. If a male has five children with five different females, there are six adults looking after five children.

      In context to the survival of the human species, just sayin...



      For Christians, it's the Bible, isn't it?

      John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."



      Yes, it is odd that Christians call themselves Christians when they don't follow their belief system all the time. Why is that?

         

      Like an invisible friend, for example? No. Never.

       

      Fair enough, I'll take that one back. You're right, I have no evidence your curriculum is Biblical based. Do you have any evidence that it isn't?



      Women, blacks, gays and asians do not have a holy book commanding them to act and live a certain way as women, blacks, gays and asians. Christians do. So, when they wave their holy books at everyone else as the ultimate truth and guidance, we most certainly will judge their behavior especially if they themselves fail to live up to their own hype.



      Christianity, like most religions, doesn't allow for individualism, it is a "group think" mentality in that all who are part of the group should be following the tenets of the group, one no different than the other.

      The fact that Christians are unable to agree with one another just goes to show how much of a failure it is as a system of guidance and morals.

  24. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 6 years ago

    A Troubled Man: Were you raised by Bible Thumpers or were you once a Bible Thumper in a "previous life"?

    Most of those that throw all religious people or Christians in the same bucket of Bible Thumpers, in these forums, at least, have admitted they were once Bible Thumpers themselves. They are arguing against the people they used to be.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Or, maybe it's due to the fact that Christians say one thing and do another? Not sure what that has to do with me?

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I think it has everything to do with you.

        The "crusading atheists" have 2 characteristics: they see all Christians (or even all religious people) the exact same way, without any nuance whatsoever; and they typically employ the same untoward behavior towards people who believe differently as the evangelicals they excoriate.

        The fact that you could not possibly conceive that a Christian that "goes against type" does not fit into your concept of one, means that you've only met one type of Christian. Most of us haven't, including non-Christians like myself.

        Melissa: Yes, exactly.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Are you saying I'm a "crusading atheist"?



          Let's get one thing sparkling, crystal clear. What exactly do you mean by "goes against type"?

          What I would assume is that you mean a Christian who "goes against" Gods commands in the Bible, is that accurate?

          If so, then yes, I have only met one "type" of Christian, the ones that cherry pick the Bible.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Of course you are a crusading atheist. Your entire presence on HubPages has been focused on belittling Christians and other religious people. You're certainly not here to write anything (869 posts and 0 hubs!).

            Whether you're freeing yourself from the painful fetters of childhood indoctrination (I'm paraphrasing Einstein here) or not, I'm not sure, but an evangelical atheist is what you seem to be.

            About "goes against type", I mean a Christian who isn't the type of Bible-thumping pharisee that make themselves easy targets here. The crusading atheists like to pretend all Christians are barely-literate, hateful people, when some very clear exceptions disprove the rule.

            About cherry-picking: I suppose almost all of them do that. Or they interpret the Bible differently from one another. There is certainly enough ambiguity to come to different interpretations about many issues, some Christians' insistence that their interpretation is correct notwithstanding.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Take that up with the hypocrites and those who hold double-standards. I do. That's not all Christians.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And yet, here we are, observing the double-standards... smile

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The zeal and the ignorance is the same, just different sides of the fence. 

      I'm sure he could tell me all about my political views, my voting record, my husband, my church, and the color of my underwear too.  Since he obviously knows how I raise my children.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Melissa, I appreciate the "zeal and ignorance" comments about me that you're sharing with others.

        Perhaps, if you didn't exaggerate so much, the topic of your underwear color may have actually surfaced, who knows?

        So, what you're saying is that based on your 38 Hubs and your hundreds of posts on the forum, one is not able to glean some perspective from your views on home schooling?

        How about the Hubs you actually wrote about home schooling?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          LMAO... Sure then find something that says I include religion in my homeschooling. 
          And there is ONE homeschooling hub that contains religious information.  It is separated from the rest of the discussion topics with italics for a reason.  Or didn't you notice that?  It's there if homeschoolers want to add it.

          And my so-called exaggerations have not a thing to do with my underwear... Your exaggerations might be centered on your nether regions though...  but that's on you.

          If you've gleaned that I am for it, then perhaps you might be able to say why.  Tell me please.  I'm dying to know.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Should I just copy/paste the reasons you gave in your Hub?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, please do that.

  25. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    If you can get god to school it is a great idea to teach him.

    Perhaps he could be taught not to kill everyone who disagrees with him! lol

 
working