Facing faith in American public schools

LadyLiberty1 wrote: "To be a Christian one must believe in the divinity of Christ."

=======

But John Adams rejected the divinity of Jesus so according to your own standard, he was not a Christian. You can't have it both ways!

LadyLiberty1 wrote: "To be a Christian one must believe in the divinity of Christ."
=======
So you agree John Adams was not a Christian?
Posted by: Freestinker
__________________

No.

LadyLiberty1 wrote: "To be a Christian one must believe in the divinity of Christ."

=======

So you agree John Adams was not a Christian?

"Kerala, hand severed of Christian Professor accused of blasphemy," by Nirmala Carvalho for Asia News, July 5:

Ernakulam (AsiaNews) - A group of unknown assailants severed the hand and the right arm of a university professor accused of defaming Mohammed months ago. The execution took place yesterday morning in Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam district (Kerala). Sajan K George, president of the Global Council of Indian Christians condemns this "barbaric act" and recalls that "Sharia is not the law of India."
According to the police, Prof. TJ Joseph, was returning with his family from Sunday service when a group of people in a Maruti Omni van drew up beside him stopping him close to home. After forcing Joseph to get out of his car, they attacked him with knives and swords, then cut off his hand and right arm throwing them away after about 200 meters.

"Joseph, Kerala, a professor at Newman's College, Thodupuzha, is free on bail. Last March he had prepared a questionnaire for examinations in the private college and according to the Muslims had included questions offensive to Muhammad.
Due to a series of protests by Islamic groups, he was suspended from school. Later, Joseph publicly apologized for his "unintentional error". Joseph's mother said that in recent months her son continued to receive threats.

Read here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/india-muslims-cut-off-professors-hand-over-months-old-test-question-about-punctuation.html

and, here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2547410/posts

Teaching the truth about Islam in American public schools would be a dangerous thing!

Given that teachers would be afraid to teach the truth, I say, "NO" to propagandizing the political/military ideology of Islam cloaked as a "religion of peace." It is enough that our own State Department lies to the American people. No more lies need to be spread in the dysfunctional public schools.

A follow-up post on the British teacher in Sudan who allowed her students to name a teddy bear "Mohammed:"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313690,00.html

"British teacher Gillian Gibbons was convicted of insulting Islam for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation from Sudan, one of her defense lawyers said Thursday.

Ali Mohammed Ajab, of Gibbons' defense team, said she was found guilty of "insulting the faith of Muslims in Sudan" under Article 125 of the Sudanese criminal code, a lighter conviction than the original charge of inciting religious hatred. A charge later confirmed by a judge leaving the closed court session.

"It's a very fair verdict, she could have had six months and lashes and a fine, and she only got 15 days and deportation," said Robert Boulos of the Unity High School, confirming there would be no appeal. He noted that she would only spend 10 days in prison, having already served five.

"We are very sad about her deportation because she was such a good teacher," he said, adding that with the current tension over the case it was probably safer for her to leave the country.

Religious conservatives in Sudan have been outraged by the naming of Gibbons' class teddy bear "Muhammad" in an apparently insulting reference to Islam's most revered prophet and defense lawyers reported receiving death threats.

"I am threatened, that's why I'm carrying a gun in court," defense lawyer Abdel Khalig Abdallah said, opening his suit coat to reveal a revolver during a break in the trial.

The maximum penalty for the original charge, which has attracted world wide attention, was 40 lashes, a fine and six months in prison."

So much for teaching Islam in the public schools in America! All those simple minded people who advocate teaching Islam don't have a clue as to the violent nature of Islam. Do you want to see the schools targeted for attack? Children put in danger? Teachers hands cut off, as in the case of a teacher in India who insulted Islam, unintendedly?

[snip] ...for the gratuitous slams against Islam, they are embarrassing.
Both sets of commenters betray their own parochialism and, indeed, ignorance. Indeed, their nonsense is the best argument for a decent, comprehensive survey course. Perhaps if our teenagers learned facts rather than cant we could look forward to a better educated electorate.
Posted by: thmas
_____________________

The above poster is simplistic is his thinking.

British Teacher Faces 40 Lashes for Naming Class Teddy Bear 'Muhammad.'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312895,00.html

Teachers at the school, in central Khartoum, a mile from the Nile River, said that Gibbons had made an innocent mistake by letting her pupils choose their favorite name for the toy as part of a school project.

Robert Boulos, the Unity director, said Gibbons was following a British National Curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and their habitats. This year’s animal was the bear.

In September, she asked a girl to bring in her teddy bear to help the class focus and then asked the children to name the toy.

“They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name,” Boulos said.

Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad. Each child was allowed to take the bear home for weekends and asked to keep a diary about what they did with the toy. Each entry was collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover, next to the message "My name is Muhammad

Under Sudan's Sharia law, blasphemy could attract a large fine, 40 lashes or a jail term of up to six months."

So, you see, all the simple minded posters who think it would be just great to teach about Islam can't see 2 feet in front of their faces.

One simple mistake, such as allowing children to name a teddy bear a name offensive to Muslim can start an international uprising and cost one or many their lives.

It would be impossible to teach that Islam is oppressive to women, and holds all people who are not Muslims in contempt. They are second class citizens and are not allowed the rights of Muslim. They must submit to Muslims/Islam/Allah, or risk losing their heads.

Now, teach that, and see how long before WWIII erupts - Islam is a warring political/military ideology cloaked in religious garb. They don't even need an excuse to go to war, but let them hear about some American teacher giving offense and they are ready to kill.

It is disheartening to read so many comments propounding the notion that a specific religion, in these cases, Christianity, is inherent to the Constitution, as well as others denying the possibility that students could learn anything useful from a survey of world religions. And as for the gratuitous slams against Islam, they are embarrassing.

Both sets of commenters betray their own parochialism and, indeed, ignorance. Indeed, their nonsense is the best argument for a decent, comprehensive survey course. Perhaps if our teenagers learned facts rather than cant we could look forward to a better educated electorate.

It is disheartening to read so many comments propounding the notion that a specific religion, in these cases, Christianity, is inherent to the Constitution, as well as others denying the possibility that students could learn anything useful from a survey of world religions. And as for the gratuitous slams against Islam, they are embarrassing.

Both sets of commenters betray their own parochialism and, indeed, ignorance. Indeed, their nonsense is the best argument for a decent, comprehensive survey course. Perhaps if our teenagers learned facts rather than cant we could look forward to a better educated electorate.

I support teaching "about" religions, but definitely not teaching religion. Students should learn the importance and impact of religion, belief systems, or the lack thereof on the world.

On Faith: Should public schools teach religion?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!

LadyLiberty1 wrote: "To be a Christian one must believe in the divinity of Christ."

=======

So you agree John Adams was not a Christian?

The first amendment has been misinterpreted progressively worse over time. The founding fathers never meant to separate from religion but to not let religion, pastors, priests, cardinals, bishops, etc., run the country. The religious leaders in Europe abused their power in the name of God and the forefathers of this nation were determined not to let that happen. Keep in mind, for years, and I believe it is still in practice today, that the congress prays before each session. Why? Because this is one nation under God; in God We trust; God bless America.

Funny how those words were not so horrible after September 11, 2001, but now, everything is fine, we throw God out again. Christianity should be taught in U.S. schools because that is what the country was founded on, Christian values and beliefs. We believe our faith in God has led to the U.S. being the strong, vibrant nation it is, so why shy away from it. If you call yourself a Christian, you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then act as though you believe and stop letting none believers influence you.

"For God have not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

2 Timothy, Chapter 1, Verse 7

From cover to cover, open it and discover . . .

The folks that will protest against a world religions class will be those that don't want their kids to know about what else is out there. They are afraid that knowledge will make their kids question the foundations of their own religious faiths and possibly switch or drop them completely.

No, No, No...Religion needs to stay out of the Gov and Public Schools. We should not be teaching fairy tales to children as if they are fact. If you wish to discuss the Bible, the Quaran or any other religious work of fiction as a piece of literature in English Class, fine... I want to stay the complete opposite of the Taliban, Catholics, and any other ultra-right wing lunacy

World religion survey courses fit within sociology, anthropology, or history courses.

It's entirely constitutional to teach these types of courses in public schools as long as no particular religion is endorsed.

To live in a world of conflicts often exacerbated by peoples' religious views and then attempt studied ignorance of that which is fueling the conflicts, is just silly.

Before teaching comparative religion in the classroom, it might first help to teach basic civics. Many people nowadays are quite ignorant of that area.

Then an understanding of the world's religions could be taught, but it would have to be done carefully. We probably have the technology to do so. It would have to be on media and not taught by the individual classroom teacher, who might have become so indoctrinated in some particular religion to the exclusion of understanding others.

It might help for people to understand religions other than their own. There is a huge amount of misinformation and misunderstanding floating around, as evidenced by this discussion. And it certainly should address aspects of each religion that go beyond their well-known scriptures and surface characteristics and into areas that are equally important within the religion but not so well known outside it.

BTW, I took the test on the Pew web site and got 14 of the 15 questions correct that they asked. (It was obviously a subset of the questionnaire.) The results of their study showed that many people don't even understand their own religions, let alone anybody else's. What a shame, in a pluralistic society!!

my taxes are not for teaching religion... let them eat cake...

if public schools teach the facts about religion ...

that would be the the end of religion...

even Renee Ellmers, who is the GOP candidate for the North Carolina HOR, can't face the facts that Catholic history is full of terrible stuff and is a man made fraud.

Did you know--early America actually collected your tithes in form of your taxes and gave to the religion of your choice.

So this has been interpreted differently through our history.

There is no such thing as an objective coverage of religions. Have you ever read the same passage of 4 different translation of bible. Here is a situation when the religion is the same but yet so much. I had a robust religious education--and after 12 years of Catholic education--made me an agnostic.

I found a personal value to my religious education--but it had no educational value in preparing me to compete in the world. Religious education should be a private decision.
On another note I love how Christians wish to promote that view because of the majority and yet when it is pointed out the majority Christian doctrine is Catholicism there is a heming and a hawing.

NO, no no no no no no no never no no no. Who came up with this crazy idea? Might as well teach witchcraft and voodoo. It is all the same mumbo-jumbo.

And where will we find teachers who do not bring their own beliefs and religious prejudices into the classroom? This is the very worst aspect of religious belief. It is absolute. It brooks no opposition. It fears doubt, and shuts any from its mind. It never considers other beliefs, for to do so it must risk its very soul. For the religious mind, its perceived god has the final say in everything. For this alone millions have been enslaved, imprisoned and slaughtered.
And yet, it's the bible itself that finally set me free, when I read it with an open mind and realized it was only a myth.

YES!!!! Comparative religion taught in an unbiased manner should be taught in all schools, not just in the US but globally. Perhaps if more people understood that they are all path to the same end...namely making people better humans and delivering the same message of love...we could develop more tolerance towards each other.

The "crazies" people often refer to misunderstand their own religion or choose to distort passages out of context to carry out their own hate agendas. No religion teaches that murder of a fellow human being is right. Kids should know this, in fact all adults should have to have classes about comparative religion because the country is rife with ignorance about other religions as the latest poll shows (even their own claimed religion in some instances).

Learning about religion is not the same as practicing religion in schools.

It would be appropriate IF in the context of the Historical Critical Literary Method, including, Source, Form, Text, and Redaction Criiticisms. It would then be exposed for the mythology that it is.

Concurrently, such a course of study should be integrated with the branch of philosophy known as Epistemology, the branch that deals with the question, "How do you KNOW that what you claim is true, really is true?"

Differing epistemologies include: My God told me so (directly one on one); It is written in an inerrant holy book; A holy see, designated to speak for God and who cannot be wrong, said so; deductive logic; and the Scientific Method.

The only one of these that actually tests for accuracy, and self corrects its hypotheses, is the Scientific Method. So if you really want to teach religion in public schools, you must subject it to actual valid academic scrutiny. How many fundamentalist Chrisitans, Muslims, or members of any religion are willing to support public schools examining their religion and holy books in the light of the Historical Critical Literary Method and an examination of Epistemological Methodology? I have never heard of a single one. No, they only want to proselitize and teach their mythology as fact. You want religion subjected to REAL ACADEMIC SCRUTINY in the classroom? Bring it on. It will not win converts; it will only accelerate the rate at which society is coming to recognize religion for the ancient mythology that it is.

YES!!! We should absolutely be educating children about world religions and most importantly the need for religious tolerance. Children should be taught the basic belief of these religions in an unbiased way. Why? Because knowing about other religions and that they are all paths to making people content and better people and have the same basic message of love thy neighbor. Do we want another generation ignorant of the beliefs of others in their community and the world? Many of the "crazies" (both Muslim and Christian) do not understand their religion correctly...killing is not loving thy neighbor.

Lets have a new generation that knows there are differences in beliefs, that it is necessary to be tolerant of other peoples views and that materialism and hatred are not the path to anything but more hatred and intolerance. We need to start understanding the purpose of religion and developing tolerance.

This inter-faith initiative is an excellent idea and those who have developed it should be congratulated!

LadyLiberty1,
Here's a source on John Adams religious views from: Peter Roberts, "John Adams" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/JohnAdams.html; viewed 23 November 2005):

Religious Affiliation: Unitarian
Summary of Religious Views:
Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.
Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.
==============
So, LadyLiberty1, it appears that John Adams was a Congregationalist Unitarian that rejected the divinity of Jesus, rather than a typical Christian Trinitarian as you contend. If you dispute this well-documented historical account, please tell us exactly why you disagree?

Posted by: Freestinker
________________

To be a Christian one must believe in the divinity of Christ.

Teaching about religions is not unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional to support one over another. Whether you are religous or not, the idas that come from various religions are important to discuss, first, as a matter of understanding the thoughts of others, and to build tolerance of others. Also, it's pretty difficult to understand history without understanding the influence of religion and religious movements (for instance, the idea of Divine Right of kings, or even Marx's writings, which were inspired by the Book of Acts). Much of literature is religiously-inspired (or against certain religious ideas). Much of philosophy and even psychology deals with religious ideas (Freud and Jung, for instance, were inspired by and fascinated with religion). Finally, religion has to do with those basic things that motivate people - that which is meaning-creating. 2+2=4 may help us get through life, but it will not help us understand its value and purpose. I applaud the effort.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise DIMINISH, ENLARGE, or AFFECT their civil capacities.
Thomas Jefferson
Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786

LadyLiberty1,

Here's a source on John Adams religious views from: Peter Roberts, "John Adams" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/JohnAdams.html; viewed 23 November 2005):

Religious Affiliation: Unitarian

Summary of Religious Views:
Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.

Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.

==============

So, LadyLiberty1, it appears that John Adams was a Congregationalist Unitarian that rejected the divinity of Jesus, rather than a typical Christian Trinitarian as you contend. If you dispute this well-documented historical account, please tell us exactly why you disagree?

No, no, no! No religion in public schools. It does not work, and there is no point in it. Everyone who is religious also believes that his/her religion is the one true religion. Well, of course he/she does! Whaddya think "faith" is? Of course, that person thinks that the particular religion he/she has embraced is the one true religion. That is what religious faith is! Leave it out of the school. Separation of church and state.

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797:
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Posted by: Freestinker
_____________________

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed to keep the Arab/Muslims of North Africa from capturing our merchant ships.

America was no longer under the protection of Great Britain, having become a newly formed nation.

Both Adams and Jefferson read copies of the Koran and found it to be a warring/violent religion, at war with all who were not Muslim, and, specifically with Christians.

THAT is why they signed the Treaty of Tripoli, to protect our merchant ships.

The wording was specific to thwart the attacks of the Muslims on America because she was perceived as a Christian nation.

What Muslims do not understand is that Christianity is individual believers in Jesus Christ. It is not a collective religion. The individuals coming together form the Church. The founding fathers did not want to corrupt the Church with government. They had seen the abuse when government and religion becomes one.

This is something Muslims still have a hard time understanding. Their religion rules all areas of life down to the sequence of washing the fingers on the hands. There is no separation of mosque and state in Islam. They are one and the same.

A bit of trivia: It was because of the Barbary Pirates that Thomas Jefferson started our Navy. Our naval men were called "leathernecks" because they wore protective leather around their necks in an effort to keep their heads from the Muslim swords. They are still called "leathernecks."

Here's a source on John Admas religious views from: Peter Roberts, "John Adams" page in "God and Country" section of "Science Resources on the Net" website (http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/JohnAdams.html; viewed 23 November 2005):

Religious Affiliation: Unitarian
Summary of Religious Views:
Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.

Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.

==============

So, LadyLiberty1, it appears that John Adams was a Congregationalist Unitarian that rejected the divinity of Jesus, rather than a typical Christian Trinitarian as you contend. If you dispute this well-documented historical account, please tell us exactly why you disagree?

The Constituion settled this question long ago.

The founding fathers recognized that history proved that democracy cannot exist when government and religion are mixed.

Those who want the government to impose their religion and/or oppose the religion of others are a danger to our democratic way of life.

Kevina2:
“. . . the Bible does not contradict itself, that is if you read it in context.”

Okay, define your ‘context.’
By that do you mean that some of it should be taken literally and some not so much? If so, please guide me to the list of passages/verses/books that ARE to be taken literally and which are not. I think this would be a very important list that someone surely has compiled by now.
Perhaps there is a version of the Bible in print that has LITERAL passages in one color or font and allegory in another, that wouldn’t be very difficult would it? I mean in some Bibles they print Jesus’ words printed in red so we have the technology.

For example Leviticus 18:22 is LITERAL and RELEVANT isn’t it? But Leviticus 5:15, we don’t need to bother with anymore?
I need a list so I get it right, it is a big book after all.

LadyLiberty1,

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here but I'm curious what your take is on the Treay of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Adams.

From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

You're a True Believer, you have that talk-to-the-hand shield in front of you that makes telling you thinks you don't want to hear impossible.
His words are clear. That you can't see them says plenty about the bible helmet you wear to protect yourself from reality.
And you hold up this book by McCulloch like it's another bible. Read ALL of the things that are out there about John Adams, not just the stuff you like. Isn't that what you're demanding of us?
Try your own advice.
Posted by: eezmamata
____________________

Please, humor me. Put the words in context and translate them. A single statement ascribed to a man, do not define the life of the man. For that, one must do research. Googling a single statement doesn't count.

David McCullough's thoroughly researched book is 651 pages of content, with acknowledgements, plus 44 pages of source notes, plus 23 pages of Bibliography for a total of 726 pages, excluding the index. It is a substantial book, with original source writings of Adams.

Don't discount it, if you haven't read it.

If I click my heels three times will I come back to America? Freedom of religion is one of the major foundations that this country was built upon! The best part about America is that originality is (supposedly) encouraged - and that we (supposedly) accept other people's different beliefs. For God's sake, why would they use our tax dollars to fund a PUBLIC education system that would teach any kind of religious studies? Whether they are advocating for a specific religion. Shouldn't they be focusing on the core matters and subjects that will prepare these students for a higher education? Oh I don't know, something like mathematics, history, science, literature/grammar/English? I go to a public university, and CHOSE to take a comparative religions class simply because it fulfilled one of my general education "Culture" requirements. I learned about all different religions, on my own time, by my own choice ... on my own dime. If the country thinks that the first thing they need to do in improving the public education system is to inculcate religious studies in their curriculums, they are sorely mistaken...

So the proposal is to discuss faith in a manner that respects everyone (including atheists, presumably), that is academically sound, and that respects the First Amendment.

Good luck with that.

ESTABLISHING religion is unconstitutional. INTERFERING with a religion is unconstitutional. Teaching the facts of all major religions is not.
The existance of religions is not debatable. They exist. Whether they are based in anything factual is debatable. But you cannot ignore the fact that religions exist. There is a pope. There is are religious texts. There are theocracies.
Religion has influenced everything since written history. Denying or ignoring they exist is useless.

Teaching religion is a waste of schooltime. Religion is not "rational"; can you "debate" it, "challenge" it?

And yes, it's also unconstitutional.

Just curious: Would you care to espouse/translate the meaning of the Adams quote that you posted? Please put it in context.

You're a True Believer, you have that talk-to-the-hand shield in front of you that makes telling you thinks you don't want to hear impossible.

His words are clear. That you can't see them says plenty about the bible helmet you wear to protect yourself from reality.

And you hold up this book by McCulloch like it's another bible. Read ALL of the things that are out there about John Adams, not just the stuff you like. Isn't that what you're demanding of us?

Try your own advice.

I'm a Druid. Where will they find my coreligionists?
Posted by: Arggg | September 30, 2010

Technically, folk religions are the 4th largest world religion, so you should be represented.

"engage directly with students in Pakistan"
This sounds like traditional proselytisation to me.
Posted by: kengelhart
-------------------
Dude, read the entire sentence!!!
"engage directly with students in Pakistan, India and elsewhere who actually practice the faith traditions covered in the curriculum."
Maybe your part of the 4 in 10 Americans that don't know most people in India are Hindus, not Muslims.

I'll agree that it all comes down to the teachers and the community. Some teachers may be pressured to portray one religion over another. Or some teachers may be biased and it will come through in their teachings. But most teachers I know will treat this as a history lesson, the way it should be.
Most of those that are vehemently against it don't seem to have read the article. Face on Faith is to "Provide students of different faiths and beliefs across the world opportunities to learn directly with, from and about each other. By means of video-conferencing and an online community, students investigate global issues of common concern and explore how their beliefs and values shape their understanding of those issues."
It's not about converting anyone.

I'm a Druid. Where will they find my coreligionists?

I can see it now.

Mohammed Day at the public school playground.

Swords will be passed out. Muslim boys will demand that the Jews and Christians and all other infidels bow to Allah, or their heads will be taken off.

Little girls will be dressed in burkas and they will be separated from the boys.

Perhaps they'll dig a hole in the ground, condemn one of the girls to stoning, and practice throwing stones.

It'll be so much fun for the power hungry little Muslim boys who will feel their superiority over all others.

What a fun day in the public school playground.

Of course, Ramadan will be a fun time at the public schools. Boys separated from girls will bow towards Mecca and pray 5 times a day.

The funny thing is Muslims never tell we the "infidels" WHAT those prayers consist of!

I was born and raised in a town of 3200 people - we had excellent public schools and superb teachers. The town also had THIRTEEN churches!!! We were not taught in school from the Bible - we were taught from textbooks! It remains the responsibility of parents and churches to teach about religion (to the young and the old).

"engage directly with students in Pakistan"

This sounds like traditional proselytisation to me.

LadyLiberty1, deal with it, John Adams was an Atheist. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
Posted by: clintt5
___________________

You are either a liar or a fool. Either way, you reveal your lack of knowledge or your desire to misrepresent.

David McCullough writes in his book on Adams, "As his family and friends knew, Adams was both a devout Christian and an independent thinker, and he saw no conflict in that." Page 19

David McCullough's book, "John Adams" is a bestseller. I dare say it has added substantially to any wealth that he had from other writings.

If you can disprove his research about Adams Christianity, I suggest you do so. You can become wealthy by exposing a bestseller as a work of lies.

It won't happen.

When I went to school, they called this World History.

I only read the title of this article and my answer is "no."
Sincerely,
Marianne

No, No and No to teaching religion in public schools. Who are these people who, not content with belief in a fairy tale themselves, insist that everyone else must believe too. The entire audience must clap for Tinker Bell to live, otherwise.........

Enough! The country has gotten along just fine without this constant hammering on religious belief. Let people find their own salvation and redemption. In other words, mind your own business!

ndeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents. -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief
How's that for a John Adams quote. LadyLiberty gets her history lessons by some priest or preacher, and don't you think he might lie like a rug to protect his phony job.
Posted by: eezmamata
________________

Context. Context. Context.

David McCullough, whose book I recommended on John Adams, by the same name, is thoroughly researched with actual writings of both John and Abigail Adams. McCullough is not a priest or pastor, but a bestselling author who has several others books of acclaim.

Just curious: Would you care to espouse/translate the meaning of the Adams quote that you posted? Please put it in context.

JWTX wrote: "Non Christians were not born here they should have to adapt to our customs not the other way around."

=============

Dude, I was born here and I'm an atheist so by your logic you should adapt to atheism, not the other way around!

Good grief.

dubhlaoich, eezmamata
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - -- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
John Adams was not an atheist. He had issues with formal religions that propagate "miracles" and other things. Read more on him, not just a few quotes from an atheist website. And your own atheist website quotes support that he thought Christianity had originally been revelatory, but was being misinterpreted and misused in the service of superstition, fraud, and unscrupulous power.
Missing from your atheist website are these quotes:
Adams told Jefferson, "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion." In another letter, Adams reveals his sincere devotion to God, “My Adoration of the Author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The Love of God and his Creation; delight, Joy, Tryumph, Exaltation in my own existence, tho' but an Atom, a molecule Organique, in the Universe, are my religion.”

In theory, teaching factual material about different religions in public schools would be great. In practice, it can't work because some of the differences in peoples beliefs are so much at logger heads it could never work. How, for example, does one teach "Evolution versus the Book of Genesis" and objectively characterize the beliefs of just the different groups of Protestants? Who would be the teachers that could walk through the public various horrible mine fields.

I can attest as to the value of being knowledgeable about religions. I was a Unitarian and then attended and Episcopal prep school in my last two years of high school (compulsory chapel five nights a week).

I also did time in a Lutheran college where a year of religion was required. A highlight of my religion course was reading a paper I'd written supporting abortion to my entire religion class (300 students ). This left the minister teaching the course perplexed because from his perspective life begins at conception. That was to him equivalent to a plane geometry proposition and in that vein it was the foundation for all his arguments against abortion. He was unable to discuss the validity of that proposition. All of my religious education assisted me greatly in arriving at my current status, agnostic/atheist. I'm not writing that tongue in cheek.

Unbiased religious education given to open minded individuals tends to make them skeptical of religious dogma, articles of religious faith, and often what even non-religious folks cite as common sense. (or as Albert Einstein said "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." ) Don't provide this type education to your children if their acceptance of your beliefs is important to you.

In conclusion, as desirable as the objective of being educated about religions might be, the cost of tilting at the religious education windmill would be way too high. Our attempts would leave us flat on our backs each time our lance missed one of the windmill's blades.

Non Christians were not born here they should have to adapt to our customs not the other way around.

Posted by: JWTX | September 30, 2010 3:17 PM
*********************************************
You are too moronic for words.

ndeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents. -- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

How's that for a John Adams quote. LadyLiberty gets her history lessons by some priest or preacher, and don't you think he might lie like a rug to protect his phony job.

I'am a Christian I say its ok for History'S sake but that is it. But I am one who is mad as hell that we have to stop celebrating our holidays to satisfie non Christians while in the work place. Non Christians were not born here they should have to adapt to our customs not the other way around.

It's fine to compare and contrast religions in a history or sociology setting. It's fine to use religious text in a comparative literature context. The problem is that some teachers will elevate one religion over the others or put one down. That's a problem with those particular teachers, not with educating our population about the world that we live in. (The other problem is that some parents don't want all religions to be presented with the same amount of respect and objectivity.)

"They don't teach accredited school courses in church why should religion be taught in school? The only reason is that people who live for religion want to force it on everyone else and what better place to do it but in a building filled with a captive audience of children. "
---------------------
First, most Americans don't go to church. Second, it's 1-2 hours a week. Schools have children roughly 30 hours a week. Church's aren't paid to teach. Schools are. Read the article. It's not about converting people, its about teaching them the basic beliefs of another major world religion. And knowing more about another religion can help them understand the context of tensions in the world today. To understand the Isreal-Palestine debate, you have to go back in history. You not only need to know about the formation of Isreal following the holocaust, but also the role of Jerusalem in the history of three major religions.
To understand the fall of Russia and the rise of communism, the fall of communism and the lack of success in Eastern Europe you have to understand the Christian Orthodox religion.
To understand the multiple wars in the Balkans, you have to understand the historical context of the multiple religions fo the various invaders that conquered, settled, and then were conquered themselves.
Religion and ethnicity have been used for millenium as a divider. Over the years, many have tried to dismantle these taught prejudices. Teaching children all major religions is one step to dismantling these prejudices.

LadyLiberty1, deal with it, John Adams was an Atheist. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

Teaching about religion in the context of literature, history and world affairs would be OK. Until the U.S. came into being, there was no country which did not have a state religion. But Islam is a special case, because many of its adherents believe their religion comes before their citizenship, and that if there is a conflict, their religion trumps all. That balance has more in common with a cult than with a modern religion. Modern religions, most of whose adherents are generally educated and so understand that modern civilization must not, cannot and should not be or behave as theocracies or the rule of law becomes subordinated to the rule of clerics, have only to look at Afghanistan under the Taliban, Pakistan and the Gulf oil states to see the folly of theocracies. Primary and secondary school students are not sufficiently mature to grasp all of that, so, no, they should not be encouraged to ignore the details of actual or potential theocracies in the name of teaching tolerance of what may commonly be called religion but behaves as something very different.

BTW, it is not "focused" on Islam. There are multiple schools from across 15 nations on 4 continents, covering most of the world's major religions.
We are taught about the Columbus discovering America, the civil war, the holocaust... why not a little knowledge on the different belief of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians?

Take a hint from John Adams: "The world would be a better place had religion never existed".
Posted by: dubhlaoich
__________________

Obviously, the above poster has never read the writings of John Adams, or the correspondence of Adams with his wife, Abigail, or with Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was a devout Christian. He and his wife spoke the Bible without referencing the quotes in all their correspondence. The poster quotes Adams without knowledge of the man or his writings. David McCullough's book, "John Adams" is thoroughly researched and beautifully written. I suggest that book as a good place to start getting to know John Adams. Misusing a quote to make a point that the poster wants to make is deception.

There are mosques springing up every day all over America where the hatred of Allah for Jews, Christians, women and infidels is taught at every service.
The coming generations will have to deal with the effects of all that hate being bred in those buildings.
We don't need to self-destruct in one generation by introducing the hate of Allah in the public schools.
Forget about teaching Religion in the public schools.
The pro-Islam agenda is marching through every institution in America.
The American people have awakened to those who want to destroy America and re-make it in the Liberal/Progressive image, using Islam as a means to an end.
Posted by: ladyliberty1
_________________________________________

This is why this initiative won't fly... Not because of what the students would learn, but because the (so-called) adults will do all they can to to pervert this to fit their way of thinking.
But to all of you out there that automatically assume the very worst, just remember these students will teach each other ABOUT their religions, not teaching THEIR religions, big, big difference!
Besides all of the paranoid, complaining of that supposed "pro-Islam agenda" should be all in favor of this, because if what they believe will happen here will also happen in reverse, the "pro-Christian agenda" in Jordan, Pakistan, etc.

This sounds like a good idea in theory, but you have wonder whether the treatment about the creation of the Book of Mormon will more resemble the description on LDS.org or Chris Hitchens' article on Slate.

Show me a community that doesn't have more churches than schools. They don't teach accredited school courses in church why should religion be taught in school? The only reason is that people who live for religion want to force it on everyone else and what better place to do it but in a building filled with a captive audience of children. Take a hint from John Adams: "The world would be a better place had religion never existed".

I went to Catholic school. We had many classes on "religion" Many were learning the teachings of the Catholic Church. Some were about exploring faith and morality. Still others covered other religions. It was a "liberal" Catholic school, and we were taught the fundamentals about other religions, from a historical, fact based perspective. I can understand not wanting classes on specific religious doctrine or classes on faith, but there is no reason kid shouldn't learn about the basic tenants and history of the worlds most influential religions. Look at Mahatma Gandhi. His non-violent movement for the independence of India is what enabled India to not go to war with Britian for independance. His movement was based on his Hindu faith. To understand Gandhi's movement and its success, you also need to understand Hinduism. But the independence of India was marked by violence, because of the separation of Muslims from Hindus. You need to understand both religions and the historical tensions in the region to understand what happened.
Math and science will still be taught. I still took AP Calc, AP Bio, and AP Chem while taking a world religions class.

The introduction to religion in the public schools, with a PRO ISLAM agenda, is infuriating!

Having spent decades wiping out any expression of Christianity in the public schools, the brazenness to even suggest teaching Religion/Islam is disgusting. All things Christian have been censored in the publci schools. The name of Jesus could not be used in prayer, only in cursing. Students have been reprimanded for bringing Bibles to school. Grade school students have been removed from the cafeterias for praying before meals. Lawsuits have been served to prevent graduation services from being held in Churches. Lawsuits have been served against disallowing a homosexual couple attending Prom because it would offend other students.

Now that the "religion of peace" has been touted to all Americans by our presidents, the State Dept., and all the Enlightened elite, the "powers that be" want to introduce "religion/faith" in the public schools. How hypocritical! Of course, there is a pro-Islam agenda/indoctrination plan for the little children.

In a recent visit of a school in Boston to a local mosque, Hebrew boys participated in a service where they bowed to Allah. Where is the outcry for that? If it were Christians holding a service and encouraging the Jewish boys to take communion, there would be lawsuits everywhere.

As a Christian, I say, "No, absolutely not!" Teaching "faith" or "religion" in the public school, would be blasphemous to Christianity and PRO ISLAM. That is the only reason this is even a consideration.

Yeah... Look...

As a public school teacher, I already have a lot on my plate right now, what with no money, increased enrollment, larger class sizes, and looming standardized tests that may or may not determine my fate as an educator. I don't need to worry about little Schlomo's parents going all nuts on me because I am teaching about Abubakarr's faith.

Try teaching eng/math/sci...REAL stuff...or forgot...do not forget biology..
CLOWNS are a joke...like the CAREER politicians...

I'm not sure about the repeated assertions about Islam being, as one fervent opponent states, "a hate religion." Certainly there are those who use Islam as a vehicle for their hate, but please remember that is hardly unique to Islam. For instance, Catholicism for centuries included in its liturgy hateful language toward Jews. Though after Vatican II this was purged, the current pope has provided a backdoor access to the same sentiments. Then there is Reverend Hagee and those evangelicals who vilify the Roman Catholic Church. How many ministers and churches fulminated against integration? And how can we forget the nice folks at the Dove Church who were intent on burning Korans for their amusement and PR?

You can go to school and learn an historical lesson about all religions. But to find a place to worship Christ you need a spirit filled teacher that is not a discussion about religion that is a path and moral compass. We should be able to pray in school and the bible offered as curriculum there is no better tool for well rounded human beings but least it get lost amid every other thing you still need a church a pastor a teacher to show how the bible is alive and how we write words and laws into the very heart of us to free our souls to reach and see a glimpse of the heaven in the good book. Its a whole lot like the never ending story but only true Jesus should be allowed anywhere for it is his fathers world afterall

How about teaching MATH, ENGLISH and SCIENCE! Schools can make “superstition” an optional elective class for special ed kids.

Yes, public schools should each "religion" but not proport any "Faith" teachings. "Religion" must be and should be taught within the context of their impact on cultures and world history and, perhaps very basic doctrines that make them different. School is about education and preparing our children for the world they live in.

What many people don't understand is that there is a real difference between "relgion" and "faith" (there are plenty people who are people hold and adhere to a personal "faith" but don't necessarily practice "religion").

Yes, public schools should each "religion" but not proport any "Faith" teachings. "Religion" must be and should be taught within the context of their impact on cultures and world history and, perhaps very basic doctrines that make them different. School is about education and preparing our children for the world they live in.

What many people don't understand is that there is a real difference between "relgion" and "faith" (there are plenty people who are people hold and adhere to a personal "faith" but don't necessarily practice "religion").

There are mosques springing up every day all over America where the hatred of Allah for Jews, Christians, women and infidels is taught at every service.

The coming generations will have to deal with the effects of all that hate being bred in those buildings.

We don't need to self-destruct in one generation by introducing the hate of Allah in the public schools.

Forget about teaching Religion in the public schools.

The pro-Islam agenda is marching through every institution in America.

The American people have awakened to those who want to destroy America and re-make it in the Liberal/Progressive image, using Islam as a means to an end.

Liberals are always vilifying schools or students because of separation of church and state.

I can just imagine if this was an initiative outreach to Israel,
there would be an outcry.

When I was in public middle school we had a class in which we studied different religions.

We had assemblies with student representatives on stage playing a Quiz Bowl on different religions representing each class.

With our public schools having students with a myriad of religions or no religion, why can't it just be done with the students in our schools and cover ALL religions?

Why have an outreach to the Muslim religion, when statistically it's the Jewish religion in the US that has the most hate crimes against them?

BTW, I am a Christian.

Absolutely not. Fairy tales and mythology have no place in schools, except possibly as literature. When our country is freed from the pervasive grip of Christianity we will become a great country again.

Should they teach religion in public schools? Not with my tax dollars. If you want your kids to get religion, send them to a parochial school or bible study. I'd much rather see my tax dollars spent educating children on the necessities that will benefit them in their future - like math, science and english - You don't hear of many countries leading the world in technology wasting time of religious teaching - they're focused on the basics and reality.

I thank the Universe that:

1. I finished school while the schools were still successfully TEACHING rather than shoving rediculous superstitions down my throat, and

2. that I have no children to risk the illiteracy that is about to overwhelm any chance this country ever had of returning to its former glory.

Congratulations, religious freaks: you've just about succeeded in turning the US into an irrelevant, third-world nation filled with ignorant and beligerant zealots... just like yourselves.

This would not even be a consideration if the objective was not to PUSH ISLAM, a doctrine of hate. Allah hates the Jews, Christians, women and infidels. That leaves a group of Muslim Clergy - all male, power hungry, autocrats who want to rule the world. Forget teaching Islam in the public school system in America! Liberal Progressives have successfully removed any reference to a Creator God in the public sector. Don't attempt to introduce Allah, a god of War and hate, in the public school system.

Teaching about religion in the context of a country's culture is fine. I support anything that will teach tolerance, respect, and open mindedness. I suspect however that some American teachers will slur any religion that isn't "modern Christianity" (ie. pro Palin, Anti-Obama, kill all Muslims, bomb Iran, etc.). That Kansas debacle and the right wing nuts in TX are good examples of this and also why religion should be left out of public schools all together.

Another good case not to do this is right here in the comments on this forum. Too many folks here are openly insulting Muslims. It wasn't long ago when openly slurring Jews and Catholics was ok too. And no, I don't want to hear about the "war on Christianity". Just a clue, it doesn't exist.

For those who are using the word "right", as in "my kid has a right to...". There are no rights. As long as there is a body that can remove them (the government), they are not rights. If you have any questions about this, google Japanese Americans 1942. If you want your kid to learn about a religion, get off your butt on Sunday and go to Sunday school.

You can't understand history or current affairs, unless you know something about religion. The founding fathers said there was to be no state religion; they never said we had to pretend religion isn't there!

Nope.

Public schools have enough to handle as it is.

BTW - my daughters go to a Catholic school, and while they go to a religion class called "religion", they hardly teach it because in fact, Catholic schools operate on the premise that if you have the money, we'll take it. You don't really have to be catholic, so the curriculum is watered down quite a bit.

Think about that: the catholic school will take ANYONE so long as they have the money to pay tuition.

Yeah, rich folk.

No religion taught there.

So it seems a bit of a sketchy proposition to begin with.

I ask - who will regulate it? Government?

Is this a conservative pushed issue? If it is then they, too, have no problem spending money on regulation.

This is what I'd assume, that it is a conservative-led issue.

And it will cost someone something.

Seems a bit of a hot potato to me.

Nope is still my answer.

There is no absolute truth in any of it. How do you GRADE someone?

Absolutely NOT! Now that the godless leaders have removed every vestige of Christianity from the public schools, they want to bring in the hate doctrine of Islam. That will be the nail in the coffin for public education.

Here's a radical idea: let's make sure that our students are able to read and write before we THINK about anything else.

There is a PLAGUE of illiteracy coming to this nation and it's even worse then the raw numbers would indicate becuase it is going to concentrated and far, far worse in certain communities.

Why not? Iran does, they seem to be doing well.

One word answer: NO! I believe in, and will argue for, the absolute separation of Church and State.

For the protection of all Americans, no matter what their belief system, America requires that an absolute fence be drawn between secular education and religious education. To breach this fence invites majoritarian intervention into the lives of minorities.

Those who are not satisfied with the secular curriculum of public schools are welcome to send their children to parochial schools. God bless them.

My daughters attend Hebrew school AFTER public school hours, as befits Jewish children. My next door neighbor's kids attend a church-based school AFTER public school hours, as befits Christian children. God bless them all!

Our Founding Fathers recognized this principle and built it into our governing institutions at every level to prevent persecution of minorities such as they and their ancestors had experienced in Europe.

America is not Saudi Arabia. Let's not emulate those whose practices we find objectionable.

How do you teach world history and culture w/o discussing religion? However, what makes the subject of religion alone difficult to teach is that so few have the training to do so. I don't mean that the teachers are w/o the religious training of their religion, but that is not the subject of religion for classroom purposes. At a time in which so many politicians, and citizens demand that the teachers have degrees in the subjects for which they teach, how many teachers have been instructed in the general subject of religion?

Personally, I'll wait until my kids are old enough to comprehend the subject and then have them listen/watch lectures from The TEaching Company on their various subjects of religion.

Depends on what the definition of "TEACH" is.

The vast majority of schools would be shoving Christianity down every student's throat at the expense of every other religion - that's what they DO.

Now that the Establishment loves all things Islam, and have spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to fight even the mention of Christianity in the public sector, of course, they want to push Islam, connect Muslim students in America with their counterparts in the Middle East. Why not pay for all those students to go to the Middle East to study their culture and religion? We don't need to indoctrinate other students with the hate doctrine of Allah. We have enough hate already.

I think it's a great idea. It may burn out and fizzle immediately, but if it doesn't, it may at least even the playing field for religions of the world. And once they're seen as relatively even, the proselytizing may abate and perhaps the religions will have to sell themselves a little better by showing their happy sides rather than their scary sides.

Lepidopteryx NAILED IT . . .

"A course in comparative religion where all are taught as simply beliefs of different groups, and none are taught as Truth, while others are taught as "superstition" would be okay with me.
Too often, that's not how it ends up, though."
=======================================
Add one sentence, please - Lepidopteryx's wise suggestion will NEVER happen in Texas, Oklahoma and their fellow ditto-head fundamentalist "Christian" States. About as much hope as teaching the course in Saudi Arabia.

Teaching religion broadly in pre-college school systems is a huge mistake.

Prior generations of Americans were taught that religion was not a subject likelyt to result in polite discussion. It raises emotions. Many children and teenagers aren't able to handle that and confrontations are likely.

Likewise, most teachers won't be able to remain neutral on the subject.

So, once again we come down to the "wisdom" issue. The 1st Amemdment doesn't prohibit reaching comparative religions, but there are many good reasons not to do it on a widespread basis.

That would not preclude doing select "advanced placement" types of courses for limited numbers of students taught by specially trained teachers.

Of course, even that raises another "wisdom" issue. If the schools aren't adequately teaching reading, writing, math and science, is it "wise" to add another subject?

I think we should allocate resources to doing better what we are currently doing poorly.

Religious illiteracy is a goal unto itself...let's do away with all the "invisible-man-in-the sky" crapola. Keep all religion out of the public schools, they're having a hard enough time with math.

If public schools - then we will need to increase our education budget by at least 20% - to then pay all of the private school students' tuition.

The U. S. can't deny financing private school education - then turn around and teach religion.

Then - all teachers will need to be versed on all religions...then we will have lawsuits alleging that a school discriminates in its religion.

This is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard of.

Why aren't you fools asking how the heck this country will face the budget deficits - and how we can stop the freak in the W.H. who wants to give citizenship to 40 million illegals. They already get free health care - at our expense.

oh my bad, it wasn't the first comment. I mean eriu203's comment.

K-12 teachers have a hard time teaching the subject matter they've been trained to teach -- comparative religion is way, way above their pay grade. The only way to do this is on video with experts on each religion explaining their own belief system from their own point of view.

For American school children you would have to throw in some indigenous stuff, such as the Mormon riff on Christianity and some "new age" things like Wicca. Native American traditions should be given time, too.

The recent poll showed that even Catholics, who receive structured indoctrination in their faith as children, didn't understand the beliefs of their Church. This is an uphill struggle at best.

Nothing wrong with teaching a comparative religion class in public school as long as it doesn't devolve into a worship class. Religion is such an important part of history and culture so religious literacy is needed. Agreed with the first comment; there's nothing wrong with teaching "factual statements in a Civilization course".

I wish Thomas Jefferson could have a talk with you. This country is under GOD but no religion.

Interesting, one poster said they became smart enough they became an Atheist. Wow ! Now that's what knowledge will do to a person. BTW, the Bible does not contradict itself, that is if you read it in context.

Posted by: kevina2

_____________________________________________

yes Kevina when you figure out that all scripture is fundamentally vile and factually incorrect one turns into an atheist, unless of course one is delusional. Really, isn't "Do not murder" one of the commandments? Then why does your god goading people to kill others all the time? Could nt the commandment simply have stated "Don not murder, unless i tell you to". Just 5 words short.

Mr. Haynes, does this program of yours, Tony Blair's, & Clinton's also include passages written by well know Atheists from antiquity to the present day ones such as Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al? If not the whole thing is just another hoax perpetuated by the Kool Aid drinkers to the young and gullible. It is always like that.

The fact that public schools must not advocate for any religion is precisely why there should be a voucher program that includes religious schools. I pay taxes for my kids education and have NO say in the religious content they receive at that school...except to say NO religion. My rights as a parent and my child's right to religion are being abhorently denied. I should be able to take the money I pay for taxes for education and apply it to the school of my choice for my child. Then public schools would be free of any responsibility to teach these things. Parents could choose how they want those things taught and that would be that. Maybe they should just provide the religious courses by parental permission alone. Then provide teachers for the courses that come directly from the local religious community. Then students could opt in or out with their parents according to their own conscience and choice. That way no one is coerced, everyone has freed choice and no one has to take money away from the public schools to give to religious schools.

How about asking the question, "Should there be public schools?"

So what's wrong with factual statements in a Civilization course like what I had? "this is india. the religions practiced most widely in india are X. Their basic tenets are Y. this is sub-saharan africa. the religions most widely practiced here prior to colonialism were Z. this is europe. the most widely practiced religion here is B." How is that a terrible thing? You should always have knowledge of the world outside of your little corner. You should certainly know why and have factual support for accepting or denying any belief, whether religious, political, philosophical... hell even why you don't like a certain style of art should be supportable with information about the ideas behind it... aside from visceral dislike.

This initiative may be well-intentioned, and even beneficial, but I doubt its constitutionality. While teaching students about religion is, on its face, constitutional, teaching students to experience religion by public school personel on public school grounds or during regular school hours is not. Sharing religious experiences as such among students of different religions is not more constitutional than sharing of those experiences among students of like religions. It's not that either practice is evil, it's just that the state (public school) may not be the supervisor of either.

Religion should be taught as a backward set of myths that have caused and continue to cause massive human suffering. As a history of how the the United States has stayed a socially backward country.

If it is to be constitutionally correct, the program would also have to address doubters, i.e., atheists and agnostics. Also the un-churched, i.e,, those who believe there is a supreme being or some spiritual forces(s), but do not belong to an established religion nor attend worship services. Additionally animistic beliefs, such as that of native American peoples and Wiccans also must be included. Only addressing the major state associated or co-opted faiths would be biased.

Kids learn all they need about religion from TV sitcoms, ads, social gossip, rap music, rumors, talk radio, and stereotypes, don't they?

Parents would be too alarmed and enraged to have kids come home from a religion class and ask questions about their "own" religion they cannot answer. Others would "go ape" if their kids decided, upon hearing or reading about other beliefs, to switch. Nothing would trouble a "believer" more than flunk a test about his religion based on "book stuff" given by a teacher who isn't "saved" according to the believer's taste. To mention other religions at all means, after all, merely to scoff, dismiss, frighten, or tell a wild joke about three clergy in a bar.

People who advocate religion in the schools really mean conservative or fundamentalist Christian indoctrination. Other beliefs would be characterized through brief anecdotes, if not repudiated outright. If this is what they want, they can dedicate all of Saturday or Sunday to that task, unless prolonged sleep, football, shopping, chores, or recreation don't get in the way of piety.

In a modern world where a random preacher from South Florida can damn near start a fire-fight that American soldiers would have to answer based solely on the exercise of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, any opportunity to teach a form of Comparative Religion in schools is welcome to me. We all need to understand that each and every American citizen has the potential to be an unofficial ambassador to the world and as such needs to understand what drives the discussions of the day in societies all over the world. As of now, the Islamic religion and the questionable exercise thereof drives the daily discussions happening in majority-Islamic countries. Having that knowledge will better equip our young people to be leaders in the world of the future.

How does this raise a First Amendment flag?

Go to Texas where the school book board has established Huckabee's hateful, intolerant "Christianity" as the official religion in schools and is banning comparative religion as a subject and is on a redneck witch hunt for references to Islam.

You teabaggers just don't get it. There is an establishment clause in the Constitution and you think you're above it like a bunch of holy Lord Cheney's.

To answer the question of "why does this raise FIrst Amendment flags?". It is simple, teachers are human, with their own biases and agendas. Basically from my experiece with teachers I don't trust that with this subject they will be at all evenhanded or fair in thier portrail of certain religions. Speaking from experience of a Math teacher who was actively trying to convert students to wiccan back in HS. Every day was another bash on Christianity day with her. She was protected by the teachers Union so no one could touch her. This was a math teacher, teaching her religion, and they couldn't touch her. How much easier would it be for someone in a class where they are actually supposed to discuss religion to force their beliefs on kids.

It might work at the Newseum (with all those "safeguards," although the First Amendment isn't worth much now) but even the notion of comparing religions will not be acceptable to many in the US. Knowledge may be power, but so is hatred and ignorance.

How does this raise a First Amendment flag? I don't see Congress or any state legislature passing any laws forcing anyone to worship anybody. I just hope it's not required. This sounds like some Bahai mess.

Interesting, one poster said they became smart enough they became an Atheist. Wow ! Now that's what knowledge will do to a person. BTW, the Bible does not contradict itself, that is if you read it in context.

No. Americans can't do a thing anymore without politicizing it.

Religion should be taught as Comparative Superstition.

Do it in an anthropology class.

Back in 1974-5, my NYC suburban high school offered an elective senior-level course within the English Department called "The Bible as Literature." We didn't use the book as a prayer book, but explored the meanings and contradictions of that book. We didn't compare religious crimes against humanity, just analyzed chapter and verse. I'm so glad I took that course because it opened my mind to religious cultures around the world - I scored a 93% on the shortened Pew test. It's the reason I became smart enough to be an atheist without guilt. Thank you Mr. Hartman - I hope the course is still offered today, as an elective, for thinking kids.

Perhaps when U.S. students rank first in the world in math and science we can consider whether we can afford to dilute the curriculum. Right now the schools should focus on teaching math, science (and not religion disguised as science, aka: "intelligent design"), reading, writing, and foreign languages. If "Face the Faith" can be integrated into an already existing civics or social studies course, it may be justifiable. But as an additional required course, no.

Maybe, if you want to "preach" to the majority Christian Americans, you might want to stop showcasing the craziness of us (which there are many examples, I'm not saying there aren't), and start showcasing some of the crazy muslim antics that ALSO occur, if you feel like making a point

stinkyliberals | September 27, 2010 2:57 PM
**********

We all know some of these fringe - but there is an entertainment value to some of the antics of the "crazy Christian" sect, don't you think?

My guess is these people are driven by the Almighty Dollar, rather than a true belief in something. (sell some books, make some appearances, score a talk show, etc.)

******
But by all means - throw as much fact based information as we can out there. I remember learning about the basis of the major religions in middle school and college. Having the knowledge about a religion gives a person the tools they need to understand the perspective others bring to the world, as well as past and present events.

With understanding, and some individual thinking, perhaps we can get our kids to refrain from stereo-typing ENTIRE RELIGIONS!

Alas, most experiments in multiculturalism end up comparing the best of other cultures with the worst of the WASP culture. We wouldn't want to offend any minorities.
----------------------------------------

Yeah, exactly. I can imagine some of the course materials now:

"Islam exhibits its most perfect form in its original home -- Saudi Arabia. There, women are treated with such respect that their bodies and faces are shielded from prying men's eyes, and they aren't degraded by everyday activities like driving or voting."

No. Church and Sunday School (or private religious schools) are the appropriate place to teach religion.

Whether people like NoSteelers1 like it or not, the United States is not homogenous -- our people are of every race and practice every religion (or none) that there is. It is arrogant an inappropriate to teach a particular religion (or even to favor one particular religion over another) in public schools.

Also, one thing the Founding Fathers did NOT want was to be deified. They were very smart, but they intentionally wrote the Constitution to be changeable, because they knew they were not infallible. Heck, one of the first things they did was add a set of amendments! What's crazy, NoSteelers1, is people think that only they are right, that only their way is the right one, and that only they have the right to decide what "America" is. America is a lot of things, but it's most definitely not a one-race, one-religion country, and I think that suggesting that it should be otherwise is the very antithesis of what it is to be American.

Let's rephrase the question: Do public school teachers today have the skills to teach religion in the classroom?
I'd argue some do, but not the vast majority.
Before we begin this dialog, we would need to rethink teacher training. Teachers will need to learn how to manage their own religious biases and cultural filters, and how to successfully manage potentially volatile conversations.

Once we have increased workforce capacity and expanded teacher skill sets, then we are able to consider whether districts should include these lessons.
(My church currently holds regular classes showcasing a variety of religions. I am a Unitarian Universalist. These classes, by the way, are open to the public.)

Teaching students about socialism, fascism, communism, and capitalism isn't promoting one over the other. The same can be said for teaching about religions. Heck in my Lutheran Sunday School we were taught about other religions, I don't think they were trying to promote them, just explain them.

Yeah, and make sure you teach about Santa Clause too. And the Easter Bunny. About the same amount of truth to all of them.

No1Steeler1, how can you say the courts "changed the interpretation of the founding fathers"? What have you been smoking? This country was founded on freedom of religion. When you make one religion a "national" religion, that undermines the whole freedom thing, don't you think? I guess you only believe in freedom of YOUR religion.

Look, the high schools are loaded down with all sorts of trivial "content." The students come to college with little ability to think critically, write clearly and coherently, and solve problems. Another politically-correct, multi-cutural "program" is not going to improve the situation.

Perhaps, the students might read THE BOOK THAT CHANGED EUROPE, a 1723 work on the religious rites and custom of all the countries in the world, or, closer to our own time, peruse the one-volume abridgement of THE GOLDEN BOUGH as a prelude to diving in to the multi-volume edition.

The idea that all lknowledge is to be found in the classroom has contributed to the collapse of the press, of serious reading, and of the kind of critical thought that questions the premiss of this idea, keeping the students from becoming independent, critical learners.

Alas, most experiments in multiculturalism end up comparing the best of other cultures with the worst of the WASP culture. We wouldn't want to offend any minorities.

Duh....no.
Let's get the reading, writing, and arithmetic first! Hey, in US schools, even 2 out of 3 would be an improvement.

A course in comparative religion where all are taught as simply beliefs of different groups, and none are taught as Truth, while others are taught as "superstition" would be okay with me.
Too often, that's not how it ends up, though.

Now you know they will not allow religion in schools. Even though for 180 years it was practiced, the Supreme Court changed the original interpretation established by the Founders.

The Supreme Court more or less said that the writers of our Constitution, the First Amendment in this case, did not correctly interpret their own writings.

Would the Founders view that as treason? I think so.

The past practice of reading the bible and prayer in our schools is the interpretation believed by the Founding Fathers. It was allowed for nearly 180 years. When the Supreme Court changed the interpretation, the majority of Americans believed it to be wrong. Yet, the minority ruled and still rules today.

Isn't it time to wake up and stop the craziness? Has this nation forgotten how intelligent the Founders were? Then why are there forces trying to change all that they stood upon?

Quote: "After a contentious summer of anti-mosque protests and threats of Qur'an burning..."

You might want to add Christians being murdered in other countries. Oh wait...it's only us crazy Christians who do things that should be held up to a mirror, right?

Mustn't upset the self-imploding muslims now, right?

Maybe, if you want to "preach" to the majority Christian Americans, you might want to stop showcasing the craziness of us (which there are many examples, I'm not saying there aren't), and start showcasing some of the crazy muslim antics that ALSO occur, if you feel like making a point.